AI scientists in previous decades would have concluded that to do so, a general intelligence would have been needed
But that was not the case at all—Watson is blatantly not a general intelligence. Big data and clever algorithms were all
that were needed
Hindsight is a wonderful thing—at the time, it was probably completely reasonable to imagine that a general AI would be the only way to solve that problem. As Arthur C Clarke said:
“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
This is perhaps a little extreme in this instance, but as techniques and narrow AI solvers move into more areas and complete a large number of specific tasks, the ‘General AI’ line will become a moving target as it has in the past.
A robot can pick up a ball and throw it to Fred who is wearing a red jacket − 20 years ago that would have been truly amazing (and it still is), but as you say—it is simply a bunch of algorithms and data.
Possibly the only way to measure General AI (at least among AI researchers) would be to give it NO data, and let it go from there.
I’m not sure that’s really fair; humans start with various predispositions which probably amount to some meaningful data by birth (I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to posit this, plenty of other animals which are born more developed certainly seem to start with a significant amount of hard coded data, so it seems reasonable to suppose that humans would have some,) and we count humans as general intelligences.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing—at the time, it was probably completely reasonable to imagine that a general AI would be the only way to solve that problem. As Arthur C Clarke said: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
This is perhaps a little extreme in this instance, but as techniques and narrow AI solvers move into more areas and complete a large number of specific tasks, the ‘General AI’ line will become a moving target as it has in the past.
A robot can pick up a ball and throw it to Fred who is wearing a red jacket − 20 years ago that would have been truly amazing (and it still is), but as you say—it is simply a bunch of algorithms and data.
Possibly the only way to measure General AI (at least among AI researchers) would be to give it NO data, and let it go from there.
I’m not sure that’s really fair; humans start with various predispositions which probably amount to some meaningful data by birth (I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to posit this, plenty of other animals which are born more developed certainly seem to start with a significant amount of hard coded data, so it seems reasonable to suppose that humans would have some,) and we count humans as general intelligences.