During my visit today with the cardiologist, he accessed Google’s AI to ask for the percentage probability of me having a stroke based on whatever criteria he had of me in his computer. 3% was the answer, <1% was the optimal range. ???
I asked does that eliminate the chance of a stroke being the cause of death?
The salient point w/ re: to the “intelligence” of AI lies with its creator’s apparent bias towards assigning it “intelligence” in the first place. The Turing test may ultimately end up being a test of human gullibility vs having anything to do with machine intelligence. This story ( https://reclaimthenet.org/flock-camera-error-gets-innocent-driver-boxed-in-by-police ) about flock cameras falsely identifying a stolen car (via AI) is not so much concerning for a technological failure as for a failure of discernment on the part of the human beings involved, encapsulated in this paragraph from the article: “The police in Plymouth had a seventeen-character VIN, stamped into the vehicle at the factory and checked against a state database, and it came back clean. They also had a camera hit generated by a machine that could not see two of the digits it was ruling on. “The plates on this car are stolen,” Officer Max Ganshyn told Feder. The department kept the camera’s story and set the VIN aside. *The human in the loop, the safeguard these contracts are sold on, *turned out to be the part of the system most willing to believe the machine.**“ (Ital. mine). As has been noted here and elsewhere ( You can't make an empty shoe tap dance. - by Tian Yi ), the PTB needn’t develop true AGI, they only need to get you—JQP—to believe they have.