You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: STEM News - Artificial Intelligence

in STEMGeeks7 months ago

I think one should differentiate - especially in the STEM community - between weak AI and strong AI. In this post were described largely examples of weak AI, but the interesting part is about where we are in development of a strong AI. Here is the biggest potential but also the biggest danger! When is singularity to be expected and once it is achieved, how we should treat strong AIs? And how they will see us - as our precious ancestors or as pathetic meatballs?

Sort:  

Great point. I would imagine they would judge our beauty and faults and then decide how they should treat us. My hope is for a favorable outcome.

On second thought...I’ve never thought or heard of someone distinguishing between weak and strong AI. I’ll certainly provide that difference in my next article on AI.

The philosopher John Searle has a lot to say on strong vs weak AI, but I disagree with his conclusions from the Chinese Room and Chinese Gym thought experiments.

Thanks again for the response. Searle has some good points. However, it's based upon the 1980s understanding of technology. Perhaps I could make his same arguments regarding humans in that Chinese Room experiment. For instance, would he consider us as lacking intentionality if we could not control our brain's language processes that cause speech or its understanding?

I'll keep reading!

Things haven't changed that much - his Chinese Room (and Gym) are still useful descriptions of current technology even though I still disagree with his conclusions! There is a key difference with symbolic AI and non-symbolic-AI but Searle's thought experiments work with either. It might seem counter-intuitive that his thought experiments apply to non-symbolic-AI, but they do because current computers are symbolic machines - that is non-symbolic-AI is simulated on symbolic processing machines.
My big complaint about Searle is that he seems to assume that human intelligence is the gold standard for intelligence. Created in his own image indeed.

Thank you for that information. I'll take a look at it for the next article!