52
Cadence heard you wanted some AI in your AI so it used AI to design an AI chip
(www.theregister.com)
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
Posts must be:
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
Measures of intelligence are all iffy at best, but I’m pretty sure "being better at raw math" isn't a good one in isolation, especially seeing as that has been the case for a very long time.
CPU's and GPU's are basically just doing really fast math repeatedly.
That aside i'd, challenge you to find a universally accepted definition of "human intelligence" that works as a benchmark we can also use to measure machine intelligence.
afaik, we're still murky on whether or not we are just really efficient specialised computers working with electric meat instead of electric stone.
The term normally used when talking about MI that is similar enough to human intelligence is AGI and even then, there's not consensus on what that actually means.
This sounds like the AI effect at work. Google's got an AI that's autonomously generating novel publishable scientific results and now that's dismissed as them being just "good at math."
The root article that this thread is about isn't about AGI at all, though. It's about an AI that's doing computer chip design.
I can see why it might seem that way from the small reply i gave, but contextually it was in response to you referencing a maths specific problem.
I also went out of my way to specifically raise the same points as in that link, wrt to "intelligence" measurements and definitions.
I wasn't advocating for one way or the other, just pointing out that (afaik) we don't currently have a good way of defining or measuring either kind of intelligence, let alone a way to compare them [*].
So timelines on when one will surpass the other by any objective measurements are moot.
[*] Comparisons on isolated tasks is possible and useful in some contexts,but not useful in a general measurement sense without an actual idea of what we should be measuring.
As in, you can measure which vehicle is heavier, but in a context of "Which of these is more red" , weight means nothing.
You yourself quoted a response with the phrase "human intelligence" in an ML based context.
I was clearly replying to your comment and not the article itself.
That phrase was not quoted in my response.