Dries Smit: belief

Transcript context

…we were saying earlier is that, 1 view is that intelligence is this quite crystallized process. There's a concept of IQ, for example, and if you have a certain amount of IQ, then it's predictable how well you can generalize, how efficient you are. And guess the data might just not back that up. The data might just say actually it's kind of not random but very specialised and there's huge differences, individual differences in capability and machines and in humans. And would that make them kind of reassess their whole idea of what intelligence is? On ArcGI 3 specifically, I think we have a clear benchmark, which we know humans, which is general in some sub domain, which we can say whatever that domain is can score that score and that is the medium score. I So think even with just in ArcGIS 3, if we do bad with our let's say the final submission score is like 5%. I don't think that would update their views because like humans can achieve that. Or maybe they would argue that if it did converge and become more regular. So if there's a new class of algorithms that kind of consistently solve the problems in some predictable amount of time maybe Charle would think oh that's the algorithm of intelligence. It's not just guessing anymore or something. I think the goalpost…

Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.