Does AI have a PR issue? Surprisingly some very weel-known academicians think so: Jean Ponce, Yann LeCun and now this wonderful article from Jerry Kaplan:
- Had artificial intelligence been named something less spooky, we’d probably worry about it less.
- While it’s true that today’s machines can credibly perform many tasks (playing chess, driving cars) that were once reserved for humans, that doesn’t mean that the machines are growing more intelligent and ambitious. It just means they’re doing what we built them to do.
- AI makes use of some powerful technologies, but they don’t fit together as well as you might expect.
- But neither approach is the Holy Grail of intelligence. Indeed, they coexist rather awkwardly under the label of artificial intelligence. The mere existence of two major approaches with different strengths calls into question whether either of them could serve as a basis for a universal theory of intelligence.
- Instead, the accomplishments so breathlessly reported are often cobbled together from a grab bag of disparate tools and techniques.
- Perhaps a less provocative description would be something like “anthropic computing.”
- We should stop describing these modern marvels as proto-humans and instead talk about them as a new generation of flexible and powerful machines.
- Rather, we should resist our predisposition to attribute human traits to our creations and accept these remarkable inventions for what they really are—potent tools that promise a more prosperous and comfortable future.
Meanwhile some very creative images of an AI brain: