The point of these AIs is that they don't need precise programming like a computer and that they understand real human language, which is imprecise but has general conventions and simplifying assumptions to make communication easier.
We don't judge AI by their ability to produce language, we judge them by their conference and ability to respond intelligently, to give us information we can use.
Because a human can understand from first principles, while current AIs are lazy and don't unless pressed. See for example, suggesting creating bleach smoothies, etc.
In this case, you don’t really need AI. People like Forth and Lisp because you can built an efficient DSL which you can converse with. What people have trouble with is formalism, and logical and abstract reasoning.
It's a good point, but if we have to basically 'program' them to get them to understand anything, they're not particularly good/useful AIs. The vast majority of the population won't do this, and any decent AI needs to be able to understand them.
No, the point of AI is to have agents achieve goals based on observing an environment. Nothing says they have to be complicated agents or not explicitly programmed. Any book on Computer Science AI will be largely filled with agents that use rather explicit logic and algorithms.
Common people who don't know anything about AI will expect it to be able to perform logical deduction. As they experience human like speech so they acribe the human understanding behind that speech.
The goal should be to be able to just talk your model without any engineering. If you as a normal user can not interact with an AI then the AI is just not smart.
The point of using a computer/AI is enable predictable and/or factual output. It’s not really a useful gotcha to say that “most humans would get this wrong”…
reply