• aname@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      11 months ago

      Yes, but you could argue that human brain is a large pattern matcher with a dictionary. What separates human intelligence from machine intelligence?

        • aname@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Yes, but we have no strict or clear s ientific definition of what makes humans intelligent or what intelligence even is.

          Humans are intelligent and machines are not “just because”

            • aname@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Yes, but we also have to draw a line somewhere. You could just as well turn any non-random based computer program into a huge hashtable, yet the intelligence arises from somewhere. There is no magic to human intelligence, unless you start believing in the soul or something.

                • aname@lemmy.one
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Yes but you are missing my point. We have no way of measuring if a human is intelligent. The whole intelligence might just as well be an illusion.

        • intensely_human@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Any hash map you or I have ever seen is not very intelligent, possibly not at all. But the infinitely large hash map we’re talking of is different. It can handle any possible situation it encounters. That’s part of its definition.

          Our hashmaps — the finite hashmaps we use to store shipping addresses and candy crush preferences — would be torn to shreds in the real world. But not this infinite hashmap that maps all possible inputs to all possible outputs. It’s a one-layer network but it’s really wide. It’s as wide as the universe of possibility, at least.

    • Kit Sorens@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      Yet language and abstraction are the core of intelligence. You cannot have intelligence without 2 way communication, and if anything, your brain contains exactly that dictionary you describe. Ask any verbal autistic person, and 90% of their conversations are scripted to a fault. However, there’s another component to intelligence that the Turing Test just scrapes against. I’m not philosophical enough to identify it, but it seems like the turing test is looking for lightning by listening for rumbling that might mean thunder.

        • 0ops@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          This is what it comes down to. Until we agree on a testable definition of “intelligence” (or sentience, sapience, consciousness or just about any descriptor of human thought), it’s not really science. Even in nature, what we might consider intelligence manifests in different organisms in different ways.

          We could assume that when people say intelligence they mean human-like intelligence. That might be narrow enough to test, but you’d probably still end up failing some humans and passing some trained models

            • 0ops@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              You’re right, it’s very much context dependent, and I appreciate your incite on how this clash between psychology and computer science muddies the terms. As a CS guy myself who’s just dipping my toes into NN’s, I lean toward the psychology definition, where intelligence is measured by behavior.

              In an artificial neural network, the algorithms that wrangle data and build a model aren’t really what makes the decisions, they just build out the “body” (model, generator functions) and “environment” (data format), so to speak. If anything that code is more comparable to DNA than any state of mind. Training on data is where the knowledge comes from, and by making connections the model can “reason” a good answer with the correlations it found. Those processes are vague enough that I don’t feel comfortable calling them algorithms, though. It’s pretty divorced from cold, hard code.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Nah, I think a hash map is intelligent if and definitely if it maps all possible inputs. Then it’s intelligent. Don’t overestimate your own information content there, homo sapiens. You assume there’s no problem that your mind cannot solve, which is a weak assumption given the infinity of problems that awaits your species.