this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2023
459 points (97.7% liked)
Funny
6827 readers
355 users here now
General rules:
- Be kind.
- All posts must make an attempt to be funny.
- Obey the general sh.itjust.works instance rules.
- No politics or political figures. There are plenty of other politics communities to choose from.
- Don't post anything grotesque or potentially illegal. Examples include pornography, gore, animal cruelty, inappropriate jokes involving kids, etc.
Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Spoilers below (and apologies, as I can’t get the spoiler tag to work. If someone knows, let me know!).
That's still an AI, just derived from a human person.
I'd argue that the intelligence is still natural.
It can be both natural and artificial. Bananas are a perfect example. They grow in the wild, but not human-altered bananas are extinct. Hence they are natural, as they don't require humans to produce more of them, and artificial, as humans made them.
Also, if you want to get real pedantic, all human intelligence is artificial as you learn from other humans. Also, your parents made your mind.
We could just say a different word to distinguish them, like UI for uploaded intelligence, or anything really. Having a different word for each seems more productive than debate about which is the more accurate use.
Well that depends on what your definition of AI is. IMO if pathfinding is AI then GLaDOS is definitely AI
Actually A* is deterministic thus simply intelligently designed, but not intelligent itself. Nobody considers that AI.
I don't necessarily consider pathfinding AI, but I don't like that reasoning. If ai coded a set of rules for a units behavior, if that behavior responds to different conditions, I'd consider it AI. Even though it is purely deterministic.
That would make any non-trivial piece of code AI. Like
ffmpeg, for example, or a chess computer. Complicated tools, sure, but with a bit of effort you can predict how they will behave in a given circumstance. Meaning you could set a trap for the chess computer and it would walk right into it. Every single time. No learning occurs.Until a few years ago AI was effectively synonymous with AGI, Artificial General Intelligence, which requires the software to be able to adapt to new situations and be able to solve even unknown problems with as few or fewer attempts than a human would need.
Caroline was just PART of GLaDOS.
I don't think it's such a stretch to say that a digital copy is artificial, especially with the given context of malfunctions and personality alteration/memory deletion (and stuff I can't quite put into words, like her existing for so long and doing testing when no other scientists are left). Even Wheatley seems more human, though stupid and ultimately just as malicious.
I mean I could've seen the story written differently (and perhaps some of it was played for laughs) but that's not what it was.
@Chais
Even though Wheatley is supposed to be the stupid one, he actually does a pretty good job learning from past mistakes that he and others have made. If only Chell didn't medle in turret production.
I think the Sync dev forgot about spoilers so I'm trying to figure it out now from this doc
did I figure it out?
yes?Worked for me in Sync 👍
Great. Unfortunately, the spoiler button in Sync's markup bar still used the reddit style markup.
So >!this!< will look like a spoiler to you and me but not to anyone on the site or any other app/frontend.
Neither does the ::: syntax work for me
on kbin
You figured it out!