My comment on YouTube
@scientious "I was not aware that the publicly available information was this far behind until I saw his book."
I also see a huge gap between not only the common but the academic understanding of the goals and even the fundamental concepts of AI. (Or maybe I still mourn my trashed 2.5 years of PhD research on this topic? :-D ) My favorite is the complete misunderstanding of the Turing Test. Not what we think we know about it but exactly how Turing defined it in the first paragraph of his article, COMPUTING MACHINERY AND INTELLIGENCE, 1950
To clarify for the public: the Turing test does not answer the question if machines can think, or in other terms, can ever become intelligent. It replaces that question and the article explains why and how machines will inevitably get the capacity to fool a human over time. Which is true, especially now as we, humans lowered the bar into the mud... Just for example recall that political messages must be "relatable" on the level of 12 years of age (see also Idiocracy), or check the "smart chaos of social media" (see also, Cambridge Analytica). EPIC :-) :-(
For me, any meaningful research towards AI must start with the question Turing replaced. Give a scientific definition of the term "machine" and "think". (Disclaimer: that's what I do ;-) ) Can you share some links to your research, btw?
The author removed my response two times from the conversation, even though it was not on the front page but under this discussion... Epic again.
