Re: Re: Not Artificial
And yet we don't consider a child's intelligence to be "artificial" in this sense, do we? I think this is a flaw in human reasoning: We made it, so it must be less real. And yet, we make humans all of the time, and those humans are not nearly as intelligent as we are (yet), but of course they aren't "artificial" because they're organic.Originally posted by Psychodelirium
Rest assured that fake intelligence is not what McCarthy had in mind when he coined "artificial intelligence", nor is it what any researchers in the field have in mind now (at least not in any skeptical or derogatory sense). Now there is a very uncontentious sense of "artificial" under which it just means "created by an artificer", and AI is clearly that. But part of the implication of the term is that AI models don't need to have psychological realism to be AI models. We use them to study animal cognition, and animal cognition only seems intelligent when all of its relatively stupid and unintelligent parts start working in unison. So it's not surprising that there are AI programs that have no psychological realism at all, or seem utterly stupid, but still count as AI. They count as AI because they help us learn something of how our own minds work.
Perhaps once we have full-blown general intelligence of a human level, calling it AI may suddenly seem inappropriate because of this implication. But since we are nowhere near such models as of yet, it's artificial intelligence, and not artificial intelligence.