Its more like intelligience is very poorly defined so a less controversial statement is thar General Artificial Intelligience doesn’t exist.
Also Generative AI such as LLMs are very very far from it, and machine learning in general haven’t yielded much result in the persuit of sophonce and sapience.
Although they technically can pass a turing test as long as the turing test has a very short time limit.
that heavily depends on how you define “intelligence”. if you insist on “think, reason and behave like a human”, then no, we don’t have “Artificial Intelligence” yet (although there are plenty of people that would argue that we do). on the other hand if you consider the ability to play chess or go intelligence, the answer is different.
Honestly I would consider BFS/DFS artificial intelligence (and I think most introductory AI courses agree). But yea it’s a definition game and I don’t think most people qualify intelligence as purely human-centric. Simple tasks like pattern recognition already count as a facet of intelligence.
I forget the exact quote or who said it, but the gist is that a species cannot be considered sapient (intelligent) on an interplanetary/interstellar stage until they have discovered Calculus. I prefer to use that as my bar for the sapience of those around me as well.
Why isn’t anyone saying that AI and machine learning are (currently) the same thing? There’s no such thing as “Artificial Intelligence” (yet)
Its more like intelligience is very poorly defined so a less controversial statement is thar General Artificial Intelligience doesn’t exist.
Also Generative AI such as LLMs are very very far from it, and machine learning in general haven’t yielded much result in the persuit of sophonce and sapience.
Although they technically can pass a turing test as long as the turing test has a very short time limit.
that heavily depends on how you define “intelligence”. if you insist on “think, reason and behave like a human”, then no, we don’t have “Artificial Intelligence” yet (although there are plenty of people that would argue that we do). on the other hand if you consider the ability to play chess or go intelligence, the answer is different.
Honestly I would consider BFS/DFS artificial intelligence (and I think most introductory AI courses agree). But yea it’s a definition game and I don’t think most people qualify intelligence as purely human-centric. Simple tasks like pattern recognition already count as a facet of intelligence.
I forget the exact quote or who said it, but the gist is that a species cannot be considered sapient (intelligent) on an interplanetary/interstellar stage until they have discovered Calculus. I prefer to use that as my bar for the sapience of those around me as well.
It very much depends on what you consider AI, or even what you consider intelligence. I personally consider LLMs AI because it’s artificial.