Comments by "Digital Nomad" (@digitalnomad9985) on "" video.

  1. @christophereduardo9903 "As a philosopher I dislike that no definition of intelligence is given" Her point was not philosophical, it was practical. She was explaining (accurately) what AI can and can't do. It is true that no definition of intelligence was given. But that was true before she was born. Billions of people have used the term "intelligence" quite usefully without offering a definition which would be sufficiently rigorous for a mathematical discussion (AI is a subcategory of computer programming which is a mathematical discipline analogous to classical geometry). Dislike the world. I also think her terminology was suboptimal. This is because relative increases in the practical sophistication of interactive automated systems have been called "smart" or "intelligent" at least in the relative sense, as much for want of a better term as it is marketing hype. My mom called me yesterday and doted on her new dog who communicated her desire for a walk by bringing Mom her shoes. And that was smart, for a dog. In fact the dog exhibited a level of understanding of the problem, the very attribute, understanding, which is completely absent from AI. Perhaps we need a new term for more sophisticated and more useful automated interactivity which does not imply understanding. Our illustrious hostess' point was that the application of the term "intelligent" to such systems brings in unwarranted expectations from the more familiar use of the term in the context of human (or even animal) capability. Her point is well taken, useful and timely. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem says that there are true statements which can be expressed in any sufficiently powerful mathematical system which cannot be proven within that system. According to Roger Penrose, this means that understanding is not algorithmic. They say that near human level AI is less than 5 years away. They said the same thing when I was 5. They have been periodically saying the same thing all my life. I am 64. Forgive me, but I find the "imminent inevitability" of this development less plausible with every passing year. Lt. Cmdr Montgomery Scott, Starfleet: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me"
    10