The whole thing ultimately had to produce one answer, after all. It just wasn’t good enough.
Ok, then arguably it’s not so simple to create an algorithm which is “just more complicated.” I mean, one could say that an ICBM is just like a Quassam rocket, but just more complicated.
An ICBM is “just” a bow-and-arrow system with a more precise guidance system, more energy available to spend reaching its destination, and a more destructive payload.
Right, and it’s far more difficult to construct. It probably took thousands of years between the first missile weapons and modern ICBMs. I doubt that it will take thousands of years to create general AI, but it’s still the same concept.
The first general AI will probably be “just” an algorithm running on a digital computer.
This comment doesn’t appear to have any relevance. Where did anyone suggest that the way to make it better is to just make it more complicated? Where did anyone suggest that improving it would be simple? I am completely baffled.
But Watson was totally clueless. Even though it had the necessary information, it had to rely on pre-programmed algorithms to access that information. It was apparently unable to come up with a new algorithm on the fly.
You:
Whatever method we use to “come up with algorithms on the fly” is itself an algorithm, just a more complicated one.
So you seemed to be saying that there’s no big deal about the human ability to come up with a new algorithm—it’s just another algorithm. Which is technically true, but this sort of meta-algorithm obviously would require a lot more sophistication to create.
Well, yes. Though probably firstly should note that I am skeptical that what you are talking about—the process of answering a Final Jeopardy question—could actually be described as coming up with new algorithms on the fly in the first place. Regardless, if we do accept that, my point that there is no meaningful distinction between relying on pre-programmed algorithms, and (algorithmically) coming up with new ones on the fly, stands. There’s plenty of ways in which our brains are more sophisticated than Watson, but that one isn’t a meaningful distinction. Perhaps you mean something else.
my point that there is no meaningful distinction between relying on pre-programmed algorithms, and (algorithmically) coming up with new ones on the fly,
Then again my question: Why not program such a meta-algorithm into Watson?
I still don’t think you’re saying what you mean. The question doesn’t make any sense. The answer to the question you probably intended to ask is, “Because the people writing Watson didn’t know how to do so in a way that would solve the problem, and presumably nobody currently does”. I mean, I think I get your point, but...
Because the people writing Watson didn’t know how to do so in a way that would solve the problem, and presumably nobody currently does
Fine, so it’s a bit like the state of rocket science in 1900. They had crude military rockets but did not know how to make the kind of really destructive stuff that would come 100 years later. As I said, AI still has a way to go.
Ok, then arguably it’s not so simple to create an algorithm which is “just more complicated.” I mean, one could say that an ICBM is just like a Quassam rocket, but just more complicated.
An ICBM is “just” a bow-and-arrow system with a more precise guidance system, more energy available to spend reaching its destination, and a more destructive payload.
Right, and it’s far more difficult to construct. It probably took thousands of years between the first missile weapons and modern ICBMs. I doubt that it will take thousands of years to create general AI, but it’s still the same concept.
The first general AI will probably be “just” an algorithm running on a digital computer.
This comment doesn’t appear to have any relevance. Where did anyone suggest that the way to make it better is to just make it more complicated? Where did anyone suggest that improving it would be simple? I am completely baffled.
Earlier, we had this exchange:
Me:
You:
So you seemed to be saying that there’s no big deal about the human ability to come up with a new algorithm—it’s just another algorithm. Which is technically true, but this sort of meta-algorithm obviously would require a lot more sophistication to create.
Well, yes. Though probably firstly should note that I am skeptical that what you are talking about—the process of answering a Final Jeopardy question—could actually be described as coming up with new algorithms on the fly in the first place. Regardless, if we do accept that, my point that there is no meaningful distinction between relying on pre-programmed algorithms, and (algorithmically) coming up with new ones on the fly, stands. There’s plenty of ways in which our brains are more sophisticated than Watson, but that one isn’t a meaningful distinction. Perhaps you mean something else.
Then again my question: Why not program such a meta-algorithm into Watson?
I still don’t think you’re saying what you mean. The question doesn’t make any sense. The answer to the question you probably intended to ask is, “Because the people writing Watson didn’t know how to do so in a way that would solve the problem, and presumably nobody currently does”. I mean, I think I get your point, but...
Fine, so it’s a bit like the state of rocket science in 1900. They had crude military rockets but did not know how to make the kind of really destructive stuff that would come 100 years later. As I said, AI still has a way to go.
Oh, yeah, of course. :)