intelligence

[jayjacobus]

Is artificial intelligence, intelligent or a substitute for intelligent?

[HexHammer]

Is artificial intelligence, intelligent or a substitute for intelligent?

Yes and no, it will easily deal with extremely complex math, which solved the mystery about how bumblebees could fly when all studies showed they couldn't.

Computers often easily surpasses humans in linear logic, alone because the bulk mass they can calculate in mere sec, but when it comes to abstract thinking they still are utterly bad and will make grave mistakes.

[attofishpi]

Is artificial intelligence, intelligent or a substitute for intelligent?

What do you mean by 'a substitute for intelligent'?

[jayjacobus]

Margerine is not butter but it is a substitute for butter. Computer sight is not sight but it is a substitute for sight.

Artificial sweetener is a sweetener but its not sugar so it's a substitute for sugar.

Substitute is an alternative.

[attofishpi]

Margerine is not butter but it is a substitute for butter. Computer sight is not sight but it is a substitute for sight.

Artificial sweetener is a sweetener but its not sugar so it's a substitute for sugar.

Substitute is an alternative.

OK. So you are stating Artificial Intelligence is a substitute for sentient intelligence?

[jayjacobus]

That seems to be the way it is.

[attofishpi]

That seems to be the way it is.

Sorry, just a bit slow on the uptake.

[attofishpi]

Is artificial intelligence, intelligent or a substitute for intelligent?

Artificial Intelligence is an extremely lacking substitute for intelligence due to its non sentience.

[Gary Childress]

Is artificial intelligence, intelligent or a substitute for intelligent?

Obviously current AI does a great job with things like logic and math but the experts I've witnessed seem to say that our current computers are generally no more intelligent than insects. Which, is fine by me. I don't want machines that are better than I am. It's bad enough being lorded over by other people. We don't need the same from the tools we create.

[Speakpigeon]

Is artificial intelligence, intelligent or a substitute for intelligent?

If you want to compare artificial intelligence to human intelligence, you would need to understand what is human intelligence, or at least understand those aspects of intelligence that you deem essential.
One way to go about it is to look at the activities humans are able to conduct successfully. Typically, this is reduced to "problem solving", which is fine but the set of problems used in IQ tests are only a very small part of what humans can do. And it seems impossible to devise a test that would be indicative of the ability of humans to solve problems generally, simply because problems make up an open set that nobody could possibility specify. I doubt the first 1912 book on IQ tests could have possibly tested the capacity of human beings to solve the problem of Quantum Physics or General Relativity. And if you don't know how to assess human intelligence, you won't be able to compare AIs and humans and assess when in the future AIs will get as smart as humans.
However, the question is quite complex. Computers already perform better than any human being for various types of operations. On the other hand, computers are crap for most things humans find easy do.
Another metrics would be to compare the logical capabilities of humans and computers. However, here we know the logic of computers but nobody knows the logic of the human brain.
As I see it, this question doesn't really matter. Computers are machines and our interest in using a machine is a function of what WE can do with it. So, the proof will be in the pudding. We already use computers extensively and they are definitely an improvement on the means available forty years ago to the general public. Who cares our computers are stupid?
Technology firms and government agencies are already busy developing AIs and they will have to test them to see if they are useful. For the moment, these AIs have very specialised capabilities rather than multipurpose ones like we have. Who cares these machines are less intelligent than we are?
AIs will become a proper substitute when they solve the problems you can't solve. That's of course already the situation. However, for now, human can solve the problem but computers can solve the same problem faster. And time is money. But a time will come when AIs will help clueless people to do things they wouldn't be able to do on their own.
Computers won't solve problems like General Relativity any time soon but it is at least conceivable that they will become more intelligent than humans in a few years. That's when they will become substitutes because they will be seen by us as absolutely necessary.
EB

[jayjacobus]

I am concerned with the effect that artificial intelligence has on human intelligence. Will it effect how we are taught, what we are taught, how human intelligence will be utilized?

People must adapt to change but artificial intelligence might be a massive change which cannot be resolved on the individual's level.

It's not enough to say artificial intelligence is better. Someone must say how human intelligence can be useful in the face of superior(?) technical intelligence.

What happens when the natural is exceeded by the substitute?

[Speakpigeon]

First of all, the prospect that humans could produce better than themselves seems really very, very small. Essentially, as I already posted on this forum, you need to keep in mind that humans have a brain which is the last outcome of a 525 million years of the natural selection of nervous systems, from the first neuron-like cells to an actual cortex. Think also that natural selection operates over the entire biosphere, which is like really, really huge. This gives us a very neat advantage over machines. Compare how AIs are now being conceived and designed: less than a million engineers, a few thousand prototypes, a very slow development cycle, and all this over a period less than a paltry 100 hundred years. The figures are just not commensurable. Natural selection beats this small group of short lived and ineffectual scientists, mathematicians, engineers, government officials and billionaires. The real situation is that no human being today understand how the human brain works. The best example of that is mathematical logic, which can't even duplicate what the human brain does even though mathematicians have been working on that for more than 120 years now.
Second, new machines are normally tested and have limited autonomy. A machine is something we, humans, use. Nobody is interested in having a machine use us.
So, assuming we will indeed successfully design an AI smarter than us, the question is how to use it. I suspect the priority will be in using AIs, initially few in numbers, very costly and probably still cumbersome to use, only in strategic or high-value activities, like security, finance, technology and science, possibly even the top administration. Again assuming that everything goes well after that first period, maybe the use of AIs will spread to the rest of society, including teaching, executive functions in companies, medicine, etc.
Where would be the problem in that?
Well, sure, there will be people who don't like it one bit. Maybe this will result in protracted conflicts over a long period, why not. However; overall, human societies in the past have demonstrated that we can adapt and make the best of a bad situation, and then this won't be a bad situation. Most people will learn to relate to AIs in a functional and operational way like they have adapted in the past to all sorts of situations. Pupils at school will learn to respect AIs. The problem will be smoothed over within one or two generations. That's what people do. That's what they do even when the governing elite is very bad.
Although AIs would be smarter than humans, it will still be humans using AIs, not the other way around. AIs will have hard-wired rules to limit themselves to what will be expected of them.
It is of course difficult to even imagine the impact of a greater intelligence on our psychology. Humans are competitive and people who enjoy today being at the top of the pile because of their wits may find themselves just redundant. Maybe that could be very bad for the moral, but only for the small group of people who want to be the big boss, and so there will be no difference with today since plenty of people today at frustrated not being the big boss. For most people, there will be no substantial difference.
The real difficulty will be in assessing which functions AIs should be allowed to take over. I would expect that at best they will be kept as advisers to human executives, although this might complicate things a great deal. At least, this will be tried and tested.
Potentially, this could solve a great many of our problems. AIs may be able to improve our governance and technology, for example. There will be also mistakes and possibly a few catastrophes but overall, there's no reason to be pessimistic.
The only real, almost certain danger is a few humans somehow using AIs against the rest of humanity. But humans doing bad things is nothing new here. AIs will definitely provide another historical opportunity for madmen to enjoy wreaking havoc on the world but it is up to us to make sure this couldn't happen.
Other than that, no problem.
EB

[jayjacobus]

Change is good. Change is bad.

Thinking what AI will do is focusing on the good.

Saying people will adapt is a vague remedy for the bad. But how will they adapt?

[commonsense]

Margerine is not butter but it is a substitute for butter. Computer sight is not sight but it is a substitute for sight.

Artificial sweetener is a sweetener but its not sugar so it's a substitute for sugar.

Substitute is an alternative.

AI may eventually become replacement intelligence!

Especially in cases of the mentally challenged and those whose intelligence is esteemed to be inadequate. But if smart humans were being outsmarted by AI, very smart people might want to rely on this replacement intelligence for a number of mental processes.

Without a doubt, computers have a much larger memory and can retrieve information from it much faster than humans. Computers can do higher math much faster than humans, let alone arithmetic, trig and geometry. Solving chemical equations, easy peasy.

Even now, computers with AI are being programmed for decision support, helping doctors to select best practice treatment options. Yep, there’s an app for that.

What about poetry? A computer could look up words that rhyme and use them correctly, but could it write poetry that touches the heart? Not now and not likely ever, because good poetry isn’t formulaic.

Anything associated with feelings would be difficult to impossible for AI. But then, IQ and EQ are not correlated in humans anyway.

How about creativity? Not really, in an artistic sense, but from the aspect of engineering or manufacturing, given enough of the right kind of information, a computer could offer plans to improve cost savings or reduce accidents.

Indeed, AI could substitute for, assist with or replace human cognitive skills, in theory anyway.

[Speakpigeon]

Saying people will adapt is a vague remedy for the bad. But how will they adapt?

Because we're already used to adapting to changing situations. Some people won't but most will. And AIs won't be anything like a threat. It's only a question of adapting to a change in our way of life. We survived the fall of autocratic regimes and we adjusted to democracy. We adapted to the industrial revolution. We adapted to capitalism. We adapted to going to school. To salaried work. To television. To the Internet. You'll always find people who loose out because of their personal make-up but nothing threatening humanity.
EB