cognitive testing like iq is great at quantifying things that can be boiled down to correct and incorrect answers. pattern recognition, recalling facts, etc. in that way computers have surpassed human intelligence long ago. AI is not much different than an encyclopedia or calculator. those things can already do mathematics or store and recall information far beyond what any human could possibly ever do. but you wouldn't call either intelligent.

intelligence that evades quantification are things like innovation and decision making. while AI is great at accurately applying things like game theory, it has trouble creating an independent framework to make decisions. because what AI is doing is referencing and applying existing human knowledge.

saying AI has "far surpassed" human intelligence is silly because it is not *actually* intelligent. it is great at *applying* things humans have already created, or mimicking them. that's not intelligence, that's rote memorization and application. it's the same reason there's not a 1:1 ratio between cognitive testing and outcomes in cognitively demanding fields.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5800655&forum_id=2Reputation#49451693)

and I agree when you say AI is great at accurately applying things like game theory -- but accurately applying something like game theory is something that is already beyond the intelligence level of a normal human. the fact that it still might not be able to create a new framework on par with game theory is something I agree with to extent, which is why I normally say it has surpassed humans in narrow to semi-general cognitive tasks, but still requires a human in the loop to surpass it at greater generality and goal direction.

your last sentence just states that its not *actually intelligent* because it doesn't create new things. but that is such a narrow definition of intelligence it excludes almost all humans. which is fine, but it also feels like you are moving goalposts, because back in the day well before the AI era, it was popular on xo to consider creativity and invention as something separate from intelligence and the popular opinion was to claim IQ was everything. Not saying this was correct either, I think invention is very important. But its odd to suddenly say its the only standard of intelligence now that its one of the only cognitive things that some humans can outperform AI on

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5800655&forum_id=2Reputation#49451719)

1. OP almost certainly has a liberal arts degree and usually fails to admit this or stops responding.

2. OP lacks an understanding of the limits of computing and the history of AI and its precursors or related fields.

3. assuming OP hasn't disappeared after my accusation of them being a Liberal Artist, i point out a large flaw in their argument that they have no response to. libs?

source: i have a STEM degree from a "prestigious" STEM school and was the principal software engineer at a large AI company before the AI bubble.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5800655&forum_id=2Reputation#49451482)

"I poast "good morning" threads and homo sex"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5800655&forum_id=2Reputation#49451541)