Yes, unqualified "AI" does not mean much, it's too broad.
There is state-of-the-art "narrow AI" (which is a moving target), there is a notion of "general AI" ("artificial general intelligence") , which is, perhaps, possible in the future, and which supposed to be "not worse than a human for any given task" (whether that is desirable is another question), and then there is a notion of possible subsequent stages.
But Drexler seems to approach this a bit differently (and to question the value of "general AI", while still wanting to provide superpowerful R&D accelerators, which is what we really need, after all; that's where our obvious bottleneck is).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2020-02-23 08:22 pm (UTC)***
Yes, unqualified "AI" does not mean much, it's too broad.
There is state-of-the-art "narrow AI" (which is a moving target), there is a notion of "general AI" ("artificial general intelligence") , which is, perhaps, possible in the future, and which supposed to be "not worse than a human for any given task" (whether that is desirable is another question), and then there is a notion of possible subsequent stages.
But Drexler seems to approach this a bit differently (and to question the value of "general AI", while still wanting to provide superpowerful R&D accelerators, which is what we really need, after all; that's where our obvious bottleneck is).