33

The terms strong and weak don't actually refer to processing, or optimization power, or any interpretation leading to "strong AI" being stronger than "weak AI". It holds conveniently in practice, but the terms come from elsewhere. In 1980, John Searle coined the following statements: AI hypothesis, strong form: an AI system can think and have a mind (in the ...


16

The rhetorical point of the Turing Test is that it places the 'test' for 'humanity' in observable outcomes, instead of in internal components. If you would behave the same in interacting with an AI as you would with a person, how could you know the difference between them? But that doesn't mean it's reliable, because intelligence has many different ...


10

The problem of the Turing Test is that it tests the machines ability to resemble humans. Not necessarily every form of AI has to resemble humans. This makes the Turing Test less reliable. However, it is still useful since it is an actual test. It is also noteworthy that there is a prize for passing or coming closest to passing the Turing Test, the Loebner ...


8

In contrast to the philosophical definitions, which rely on terms like "mind" and "think," there are also definitions that hinge on observables. That is, a Strong AI is an AI that understands itself well enough to self-improve. Even if it is philosophically not equivalent to a human, or unable to perform all cognitive tasks that a human can, this AI can ...


7

What 'infinite' means here could possibly be debated at some length, but that notwithstanding, here are two conflicting answers: 'Yes': Simulate all possible universes. Stop when you get to one containing a flavor of intelligence that passes whatever test you have in mind. Steven Wolfram has suggested something broadly along these lines. Problem: the state ...


7

The classical Turing Test certainly does have limitations. Because I don't see it mentioned here yet, I'll suggest you read about The Chinese Room, which is one of the most commonly cited reasons why the Turing Test indeed falls short of ascertaining true 'consciousness'. However, I'd also note that Turing himself, in the original paper that proposed the ...


7

Let's start with the basics: Calculus (Derivatives, Integrals, and Series - get comfortable with summation and product notations). Multi-variable Calculus (Gradients, Directional Derivatives, Vectors) http://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/ (go to content in top left corner - work your way through Calculus 1, 2, 3. Linear Algebra (this is a big one , co-variance ...


6

Unlikely! Chess has been "solved" by AI much longer than GO (chess engines even before AI are way too strong for human players) and still people are playing and competing. Simply put competition and sports live from the human element. Humans competing against each other will still create the same joy for most people regardless of the fact that all ...


5

Yes, to some of what you propose. No to some. Today corporations are granted rights: to own property, earn income, pay taxes, contribute to political campaigns, offer opinion in public, ad more. Even now I see no reason why an AI should not be eligible to incorporate itself, thereby inheriting all these rights. Conversely, any corporation already in ...


5

As Matthew Graves explained in another answer No free lunch theorem confirms the flexibility - efficiency trade-off. However, this theorem is describing a situation where you have a set of completely independent tasks. This often doesn't hold, as many different problems are equivalent in their core or at least have some overlap. Then you can do something ...


5

There are many definitions of Artificial Intelligence out in the wild. All these definitions are part of one (or more) of the areas. There are four main domains, and the picture below will shed some light over this. Turing Test revolves around the left side of the cardinality, which is mostly concerned with how humans think or act. But, we know that this is ...


5

The cleanest result we have on this issue is the "no free lunch" theorem. Basically, in order to make a system perform better at a specific task, you have to degrade its performance on other tasks, and so there is a flexibility-efficiency tradeoff. But to the broader question, or whether or not your thinking is correct, I think it pays to look more closely ...


5

I'm going to be controversial here; so please don't vote this answer down if you just disagree with it. Your question presupposes that machines do not or cannot possess qualia, which are required for true understanding. Given that we don't really know what it means to 'understand' something, and that even the meaning of 'meaning' itself is by no means a ...


5

The current method to implement motivation is some kind of artificial reward. Deepmind's DQN for example is driven by the score of the game. The higher the score, the better. The AI learns to adjust its actions to get the most points and therefore the most reward. This is called reinforcement learing. The reward motivates the AI to adapt its actions, so to ...


5

This is an interesting question actually. There's a quite realistic idea about "where can the curiosity originate from" in the book "On intelligence" written by Jeff Hawkins and Sandra Blakeslee. It's based on such statements: Mind creates its own model of the world it exists in. It makes predictions about everything all the time (actually Jeff Hawkins ...


5

Nim was actually one of the first games ever played by an electronic machine. It was called the Nimatron and was displayed at the 1940 New York World's Fair. It is also well known that neural networks can model the Xor-function, if they have enough layers. Despite that, Marvin Minsky is supposed to have killed neural networks in the sixties, by asserting ...


5

As Artificial Intelligence is rapidly invading in our lives the myths around AI is also fabricating rapidly. Before getting into details one need to get clear off from this myths. Myth 1: AI will take away our jobs: Reality: AI is not completely different from other technologies and AI will not take away jobs but AI will change the way we work and helps us ...


4

We're definitely nowhere near that level of AI; at best, high-tech solutions like deep convolutional neural nets can help with image recognition and some other algorithms can perform things like robotic movement adequately enough to be useful in some scenarios. None of this is even as sophisticated as the behavior of a flea, but no one refers to insects as "...


4

In theory, if one could build a computing device that matched or exceeded the cognitive capabilities of a sentient being, it should be possible. (Singlarity adherents believe we will one day be able to transfer the human mind into an artificial computing platform, and it logically follows that one could "hack" such a mind, or build from the ground up, to ...


4

There is a neat definition of artificial intelligence, which circumvents the problem of defining "intelligence" and which I would ascribe to McCarthy, the founder of the field, although I can only find it now in this book by H. Simon: "… having to do with finding ways to do intelligent tasks, to do tasks which, if they were done by human beings, would call ...


4

By definition, artificial intelligence includes all forms of computer systems capable of completing tasks that would ordinarily warrant human intelligence. A superintelligent AI would have intelligence far superior to that of any human and therefore would be capable of creating systems beyond our capabilities. As a consequence, if a technology superior to ...


4

I find the concept of the a Turing machine useful. In one dimension, everything is a string. All of the parts that are "not you" are merely a substrate, a medium for the program your_mind runs on top of. The you, your identity, the "metaphysical" component we think of as the mind, is a result of running the algorithm that is your_mind on the bioware of your ...


4

An AI takes the decision based on the output of their utility function. This is just a fancy word for the calculations that AI perform to compare profit and loss of taking certain decision. I have considered that you are are talking about a General Intelligence. There is always a tight analogy between a General Intelligence and a human. You can juxtapose the ...


4

Whether all AI are goal-driven depends on how far you're willing to extend the definition of 'goal'. AIs are often defined through their primary tasks. Face recognition is a process; a face recognition AI is a limited, special-purpose AI. Paperclip collection is a process, the Paperclip Maximizer is a general, goal-driven AI. There will always be some sort ...


4

Absolutely, regardless of how you define "intelligence". If intelligence is merely information, as in "a piece of intelligence", as in data, or an algorithm, the structure is finite. (Structure, here, refers to the information, which may be reduced to a single string in either case.) See: Turning Machine. If intelligence is the rational capability of ...


3

Murray Shanahan, in his book The Technological Singularity, makes the case that the rights of any being are determined by its intelligence. For instance, we value the life of a dog above that of an ant and likewise value human life above that of other animals. From here one could argue that a general artificial intelligence of equal intelligence to a ...


3

It depends a bit on what you mean by 'quantum computer'. The 'conventional' notion is that quantum computation buys a (in some cases, exponential) speedup - it doesn't change what can be computed, just how quickly. In contrast, advocates of hypercomputation claim that quantum effects may make it possible to do infinite computations in finite time. Note, ...


3

It depends on how the test is given. For example, when people claimed that a machine had successfully passed the Turing Test a few years ago, the criteria was pretty weak. It only had to fool 30% of the people for 5 minutes. That's not much of a test. To put this in perspective you probably wouldn't detect schizophrenia, autism, learning disabilities, or ...


3

First, a note on the question itself. Humans have been endowed with personalities by nature, and it is not clear (to me at least) if this is a feature or a bug. In my opinion, this is a statement that constrains the question, since it assumes that the personality is given. To me, it feels a bit like playing god: Artificial (given) Intelligence would ...


3

'Personality' is something of a 'suitcase word' (Minsky) for quite a large collection of (presumably reasonably consistent) observable traits. It seems clear that there is a certain collective advantage in having a consistent personality - specifically that it affords observers some learning gradient in an otherwise uncertain environment. This is of ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible