= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
DeVliegendeHollander comments on Leaving LessWrong for a more rational life - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (268)
Eagles, too: they can fly and I not. The question is whether the currently foreseeable computerizable tasks are closer to flying or to intelligence. Which in turn depends on how high and how "magic" we see intelligence.
Ugh, using Aristotelean logic? So it is not random hypotheses but causality and logic based.
I think using your terminology, thinking is not the searching, it is the findinging logical relationships so not a lot of space must be searched.
OK, that makes sense. Perhaps we can agree that logic and casuality and actual reasoning is all about narrowing the hypothesis space to search. This is intelligence, not the search.
I'm starting to suspect that we're arguing on definitions. By search I mean the entire algorithm of finding the best hypothesis; both random hypothesis checking and Aristotelian logic (and any combination of these methods) fit. What do you mean?
Narrowing the hypothesis space is search. Once you narrowed the hypotheses space to a single point, you have found an answer.
As for eagles: if we build a drone that can fly as well as an eagle can, I'd say that the drone has an eagle-level flying ability; if a computer can solve all intellectual tasks that a human can solve, I'd say that the computer has a human-level intelligence.