It's a good reminder that until relatively recently, board games were considered major topics of AI research. And it was considered a major event when Deep Blue beat Kasparov in 1997. But now we just don't consider this AI for some reason.
A lot of anti-AI rhetoric, both the rhetoric saying that it's not possible, or that whatever new AI thing "isn't real AI", or the rhetoric that says AI is dangerous, I'm fairly sure is rooted in a probably vague sense in most people that _what they are_ is not a collection of atoms, that their conscious experience of the world is not some emergent property of neurons, but that they are, deep down, a spiritual, immaterial being, which also holds up the possibility of being _eternal_. As AI sort of chips away at the frontiers of intelligence, and shows that deep down, our experience of the world, our consciousness, all of it is an ugly bag of party tricks, it provokes a profound sense of _unease_. You're not just sort of threatening to dethrone humanity's place in the center of the universe, it's also in a sense stealing _eternal life_ from people. That's fairly heavy.
It's also why people who work on AI or work with AI tend to also be intensely interested in life extension.
The ability of AI to mass produce art reduces its value, turning what might seem to have artistic value into first design and ornamentation and finally just background noise.
(It's unfortunately clipped on mobile!)
We can think of AI as the quest for a computer program that is a complex adaptive system that can exchange information with us in an anthropomorphised manner.
LLMs are much closer to such a technology than a program that can optimally play a board game by evaluating each position and pruning its model accordingly.
No, thank you. Let us just stick to "a system that can solve problems potentially replacing a professional", which also would imply "providing a professional output".
That «anthropomorphised» could make one think of the joke (which exploits the gender-bent use of 'man' in demotic):
Seller: "This computer reasons just like a man". Female customer: "Can I have one that just reasons?"
Similarly, it should "exchange information well" - not "like a human".
"Professional" and "well" are small targets for tech firms attempting to explain R&D to their share holders.
The pursuit of artificial intelligence is something with far deeper roots and wider ranging consequences than most pedants can imagine.
Oh, the same as today, had it also happened around that time that licence got widespreadly felt as a prevailing right.
> share holders
If you want to sell, surely there is market for all kind of junk. We also have this need for the "real things" though.
> pedants
No, not pedantry: the difference is radical, between form and effectiveness. In AGI, it's the proper reasoning that makes the "real" difference - use of natural language could be useful. We want the consultant to be competent and smart, not dressed attractively and "smart".
Thank you for persisting.