Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;-jeffB, post: 24816061, member: 27832&quot;]But I see that superiority as a rapidly dwindling frontier.</p><p><br /></p><p>Humans can bring together information from many sources and sensory channels, consciously and unconsciously. A programmer can&#039;t code a correct solution without knowing all the inputs and how they interact.</p><p><br /></p><p>But for the systems being built today, <i>no programmer has to</i> do that. The systems learn the same way animals or people do -- by repeated training against a wide variety of inputs, guided by scoring of the results. Given that, and given enough capacity, the systems should be able to emulate human decision-making.</p><p><br /></p><p>The thing is, these systems are simultaneously given <i>not</i> enough capacity and training (yet) and <i>far more</i> capacity and training than any human. And so we get today&#039;s situation, where in some areas the systems far outperform <i>any</i> human, in others they far outperform <i>typical</i> humans (as opposed to subject experts), and in yet others they founder hilariously.</p><p><br /></p><p>I don&#039;t see them getting <i>less</i> capable with time, and I see &quot;human equivalence&quot; as an arbitrary and fairly low spot on their eventual trajectory. I&#039;m not sure whether to hope I&#039;m right or wrong.</p><p><br /></p><p>Deftly noted, and please accept mine. I have no excuse.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in