It is not intelligent.

Hiding the training data behind gradient descent and then making attributions to the program that responds using this model is certainly artificial though.

This analogy just isn't holding water.

▲

tim333 4 days ago | parent [-]

Can't you judge on the results though rather than saying AI isn't intelligent because it uses gradient descent and biology is intelligent because it uses wet neurons?

	▲	Zacharias030 28 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I strongly believe that our concept of intelligence is like the „god of the gaps“ [0]. Intelligent is only what we haven’t yet explained. Chess computers surely must be intelligent, but then deep blue was „just search“. Go computers surely must have intelligence because it requires intuition and search is intractable, but then it’s „just CNN based pattern matching“. Writing essays surely requires intelligence, because of the creativity, but then it‘s actually just a „stochastic parrot“. We keep attributing intelligence to what is currently out of reach even as this set is rapidly shrinking before out eyes. It would be better to say that intelligence is an emergent phenomenon and that behavior that seems intelligent is intelligent. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps