Personally, in 2014 I had put the odds of seeing human-level AI during my lifetime at around 10%.
Given the latest developments, I would put the odds at fifty-fifty within the next decade.
Given the latest developments, I would put the odds at fifty-fifty within the next decade.
thing is technological development is not linear, you can't predict future development based on the last n decades. You can't assume an AI winter is not coming because it most likely is
Is this not you making a prediction, the very sentence after saying one can not predict the future?
I am basing future AI progress on what AI can do in July of 2020, which I believe already represents substantial progress towards that goal.
"Ark estimates that Deep Learning has created $1 trillion in market value so far. " -- we might be headed towards a warm winter
(from https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2020/01/ark-invests-big-five-t...)
Humans are usually tasked with solving an IQ-test as the most common proxy.
A human level AI could do just the same. If the AI scores above 50 points, it can be considered human level (though literally retarded).
The proposed method is very hard to distinguish from a traditional IQ test (or a subset thereof) and the first to parts (~38 pages) basically serve as a justification for this.
In the end the author admits that the proposed method lacks test diversity, has no established validity and has no way of qualifying results.
The essay just stops where it gets interesting (i.e. at the point where the actual science starts), which left me a bit disappointed in the end t.b.h.
It's a great summary of the history and development of the field and the methodologies used therein.
It's in no way a solution to measuring and quantifying general intelligence, though.