• @ContrarianTrail@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    24 hours ago

    Recognizing colored blocks in an image was AI until someone figured out a good way to do it. Playing chess at grandmaster levels was AI until someone figured out how to do it.

    You make it sound like these systems stopped being AI the moment they actually succeeded at what they were designed to do. When you play chess against a computer it’s AI you’re playing against.

    • @frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      0
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      That’s exactly what I’m getting at. AI is about pushing the boundary. Once the boundary is crossed, it’s not AI anymore.

      Those chess engines don’t play like human players. If you were to look at how they determine things, you might conclude they’re not intelligent at all by the same metrics that you’re dismissing ChatGPT. But at this point, they are almost impossible for humans to beat.

      • @ContrarianTrail@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        23 hours ago

        I’m not the person you originally replied to. At no point have I dismissed ChatGPT.

        I disagree with your logic about the definition of AI. Intelligence is the ability to acquire, understand, and use knowledge. A chess-playing AI can see the board, understand the ramifications of each move, and respond to how the pieces are moved. That makes it intelligent - narrowly so, but intelligent nonetheless. And since it’s artificial too, it fits the definition of AI.