Realistically, how far away are we from human level AI?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Realistically, how far away are we from human level AI?

thechosenone: Mar 21, 2009

Subjunctive posted:

I think the Turing test is usually framed as being written, because perfect voice synthesis is hard and not really relevant to the core question.

Would you consider a machine to have passed if it couldn't be distinguished from a 5-year-old? Someone with dementia?

Kindof? Like if I it really felt like I was talking with a 5 year old I would be pretty impressed at least. Not nearly as much as if it were an adult, but still impressed.

As it is, 'ai's' Don't really even have that.

# ¿ Jan 11, 2017 00:53

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 09:00

thechosenone: Mar 21, 2009

Subjunctive posted:

How about a 2-year-old? A written, detailed log of a newborn's activities? Or, I think more interestingly, a person with dementia or other serious neurological damage? I wouldn't say that such people have ceased to be intelligent, personally. That's not a philosophical line I'm comfortable crossing.

Like if it was soundbased? probably still yeah, Since it is hard to even get that with ai. like a 2 year old does a lot of stuff.

# ¿ Jan 11, 2017 02:39

thechosenone: Mar 21, 2009

A Wizard of Goatse posted:

are you planning on building an electric retard? what exactly is the point of this exercise to you

'talk like a human' is a serviceable standard of consciousness because language (which yes, includes writing, guy) is the readiest form by which we perceive the thoughts of others. Where it does not exist in humans, we infer it based on our knowledge of how humans, generally, operate, which is unlike the manner in which we know rocks or trees to. People, at least people outside the ones ITT who see no manner in which they are more generally competent than a Powerbook, do not assume rocks are actually the same as nonverbally autistic people. A computer that spits out random letters like a baby banging on a keyboard or outputs nothing at all like a coma patient is likewise not going to persuade anybody but weirdo masturbatory computer cultists that there is actually the awareness of a human - young, disabled, or otherwise - lurking inside there.

This isn't the only possible measure of intelligence, but it's one that'd settle the issue in most humans' eyes. I don't know if you think you're going to lawyer someone into accepting that your paperweight thinks and feels as much as you do or what but that's not really how it works.

Are you talking to me? If you are, a person who was brain dead and a 2 year probably couldn't interact with a keyboard. But If you could make a robot that could move around, act and learn like a 2 year old, that would be pretty drat impressive.

I don't think I personally have much in particular in mind, just that it would have to be something pretty hard to bullshit.

# ¿ Jan 11, 2017 02:43

thechosenone: Mar 21, 2009

Subjunctive posted:

I'm trying to figure out how much people want to test "is intelligent" versus "behaves like a human", and in the latter case what it means for a given capability to not be present for a human.

Honestly I would settle for something that is intelligent, or something that could do something really impressive. I don't really have much money on human level ai, or even really a general purpose, learning ai. The idea is good for getting rich people to open their wallets for more realistic research maybe.

# ¿ Jan 11, 2017 02:45

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Realistically, how far away are we from human level AI?