As I was saying, the process it uses really makes no difference if the output is intelligent.
No, it's not as you were saying. You assumed a process of learning or understanding, and said it made no difference if it's the same as a human's or not, and then wrote paragraphs on how smart it is and how much it understands, and in fact used how much it understands to underpin an argument about how intelligent it is.
The fact a machine can tell what you're asking for just about any question in the English language (most of which have never been asked before) is a huge amount of progress. We can tell it understands the above question because it gives you a number in dollars rather than a day of the week or a salad recipe. This kind of understanding and adaptability to any kind of question is the cornerstone of intelligence. So it's a very big deal that it can do that. It may have issues with logical reasoning and math, but those are things computers were always pretty good at, so it shouldn't be too long before those capabilities can be added in.
If you're comparing AI to women and midwits that suggests it already has a level of understanding close to that of a human. We'd be foolish to think AI is not going to get significantly better just as all technology does when there is financial incentive and ways to measure its success.
All of this, is you saying it understands.
Only once challenged on it, did you retreat to it not mattering if it even understood or not, because the output is intelligible.
We just have a different definition of understanding. I say something has understanding if it exhibits behavior we typically associate with understanding. If you don't like that definition that's fine, but it doesn't disprove the fact that today's AIs can exhibit behavior which we would associate with understanding if exhibited by a human or animal. And that's a marked improvement on AIs from a decade ago. So if AIs continue to progress they will be able to conduct scientific experiments and eventually be able to wipe out humanity.
No, it's not as you were saying. You assumed a process of learning or understanding, and said it made no difference if it's the same as a human's or not, and then wrote paragraphs on how smart it is and how much it understands, and in fact used how much it understands to underpin an argument about how intelligent it is.
All of this, is you saying it understands.
Only once challenged on it, did you retreat to it not mattering if it even understood or not, because the output is intelligible.
It's like talking to an ai.
We just have a different definition of understanding. I say something has understanding if it exhibits behavior we typically associate with understanding. If you don't like that definition that's fine, but it doesn't disprove the fact that today's AIs can exhibit behavior which we would associate with understanding if exhibited by a human or animal. And that's a marked improvement on AIs from a decade ago. So if AIs continue to progress they will be able to conduct scientific experiments and eventually be able to wipe out humanity.