| You use so many words, yet none of them with precise meaning. > none of it is elegant What is "elegant" to you? A biological brain, for all intents and purposes, is a big mess. By comparison an ALU in silicon is much neater. The way we "think" by forming associations and recalling the most striking ones we've formed seems awfully chaotic/arbitrary and unreliable. By comparison the way a search engine works by scoring words and phrases and optimizing for recall and precision seems so much neater. > But it just doesn't have that spark of true intelligence. What is "true intelligence" to you? Perhaps you meant just human intelligence? Perhaps "true ingelligence" is just sufficiently adavanced technology (i.e. "magic")? > Somehow human level intelligence manages to cut through immense search spaces and find the answer (like the game Go) - how does it do that? Except of course when it doesn't, right? Isn't that why we're looking at AI? It's not really our own mertit, but we already know how to create more humans with human-level intelligence. It's neither afully efficient nor awfully reliable, but seems to work well enough for "practical purposes". The allure of AI is being able create something more than that. Requiring it to make the same mistakes as humans and to work in similarly unpredictable ways in order to appear genuine then seem like the wrong goals. |