I say absolutely not and have posted my opinion about this for a couple of years now. For me, this is a result of a “gut feeling” that I have never had the background and experience to put into words. Well here is a link that pretty well explains how I think of intelligence, be it human intelligence or artificial/machine intelligence. According to this link, experience, emotions, imagination and other elusive abstractions are part of human intelligence that a machine can never grasp, duplicate, or apply.
But what worries me most about human intelligence is that we tend to fritter it away. Human intelligence takes constant work and development. Some of us do that but many do not. The worst part is that in increasingly larger parts of the world, public policy seems to encourage allowing human intel to atrophy in favor of a deadened collective existence.
https://scitechdaily.com/why-ai-may-never-reach-human-intelligence/
I think you overrate human intelligence.
I doubt it will ever replicate the creativity or overall strategic planning that a human can do. It will probably be great for many other tasks tough. Legal research, data analysis, etc.
I think you overrate human intelligence.
Could be. Many posters try to yank me back to that reality, but I resist.
If this board is any indication, I'd say it's a resounding yup...
A good friend will bail you out of jail, but your best friend will be sitting next to you in the cell saying "that was f***ing awesome"
Depends. For many tasks, yes. For all things, no. You won't have a pure AI doctor, but that doctor could have AI match your tumor biopsy result to a world database of all tumor biopsies, find the 20 closest genetic matches, and tell Doc the success or failure of specific drug combinations used to try to eradicate those tumors. It might tell the Doc "He needs to take this, and I have already ordered it from his pharmacy on file, and also tell him he needs an oil change. I scheduled it for Tuesday".
https://twitter.com/stoppfeenin/status/2080089314495742209?s=20
I say absolutely not and have posted my opinion about this for a couple of years now. For me, this is a result of a “gut feeling” that I have never had the background and experience to put into words. Well here is a link that pretty well explains how I think of intelligence, be it human intelligence or artificial/machine intelligence. According to this link, experience, emotions, imagination and other elusive abstractions are part of human intelligence that a machine can never grasp, duplicate, or apply.
But what worries me most about human intelligence is that we tend to fritter it away. Human intelligence takes constant work and development. Some of us do that but many do not. The worst part is that in increasingly larger parts of the world, public policy seems to encourage allowing human intel to atrophy in favor of a deadened collective existence.
https://scitechdaily.com/why-ai-may-never-reach-human-intelligence/
As I have already said several times, this is the wrong question. The correct question is: "Can artificial intelligence develop to the point that human intelligence becomes obsolete or unnecessary?"
You and others on your side keep obsessing with the supposed inability of computers to perfectly replicate human beings. You might be right that it will never happen, but you fail to realize that it doesn't matter. Computers don't have to replicate human beings. They just have to outperform them.
Depends. For many tasks, yes. For all things, no. You won't have a pure AI doctor, but that doctor could have AI match your tumor biopsy result to a world database of all tumor biopsies, find the 20 closest genetic matches, and tell Doc the success or failure of specific drug combinations used to try to eradicate those tumors. It might tell the Doc "He needs to take this, and I have already ordered it from his pharmacy on file, and also tell him he needs an oil change. I scheduled it for Tuesday".
If that’s the case, it will be because either people can’t handle not having a human involved, or the business benefits somehow from having a human there. Certainly not because of capability. Even now, in it’s infancy, AI can outperform many health professionals on diagnosis & treatments…
either people can’t handle not having a human involved, or the business benefits somehow from having a human there.
This is why the last human jobs will be bartenders and hookers.
I don’t disagree with this. But I don’t think you address the salient point of the link. There are certain aspects of human intelligence and brain function that can’t be translated into recognizable code so that AI can use it. These functions are vital to intelligence and evolution of intelligence.
You might be right that it will never happen, but you fail to realize that it doesn't matter. Computers don't have to replicate human beings. They just have to outperform them.
Performance is what it's all about, isn't it? Compare my IQ and my resume/portfolio. Now guess which one I'm judged by.
Various devices have outperformed human thinking for decades, but there is no degradation of the need for human beings.
@co-hoosier That's because we've only been outperformed in discrete arenas. If AGI can eventually outperform us in everything, then, well, game over. We're irrelevant.
I can drill more holes with a power drill than a hand one. Performance doesn’t mean squat in terms of knowing if I even need a hole.