Submitted by blaspheminCapn t3_zhtjnn in Futurology
CCerta112 t1_izpjlza wrote
Reply to comment by SeneInSPAAACE in How AI found the words to kill cancer cells by blaspheminCapn
As far as I‘m aware, we don‘t have a comprehensive model to explain intelligence with, yet.
Sure, there might be neural networks that deploy more artificial neurons than cats have real neurons. (I doubt that claim, but I am also too lazy to look it up.) One of the differences is, cats can reason, current AI can‘t. There are more, but my point is: After a certain point it‘s not about the computing power or network site, but about how the structure and connections look.
SeneInSPAAACE t1_izppn5w wrote
>I doubt that claim
Of course, that's not the full story. Machine neurons aren't necessarily as performant as animal neurons, for an example. On the other hand, they're ridiculously faster. Also, that reference is nearly a decade old. We're somewhere around 90 billion simulated neurons at this point. Don't quote me on that, though, that's just the ballpark I got from a fairly casual googling.
Most of what you'd call "machine learning" AI:s can't really reason - They do pattern recognition really well, and data transformation, but that's about it. However, that doesn't mean you cannot do AIs who can do logical reasoning. There's been some fairly recent developments on that area. Now, where the limits are, we don't really know, but we're way beyond amoebas and simple invertebrates such as nematodes, definitely.
CCerta112 t1_izpxqez wrote
> Doubt me at your own peril.
Wow, that‘s really interesting. Thanks!
My original point still stands, though. Intelligence is not defined by the amount of neurons connected in a network.
SeneInSPAAACE t1_izpygfm wrote
Yes. Intelligence is not defined by that. So what is it defined by?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments