Anyone who still believes that AI will one day replace humans still doesn’t understand humans. Abstract thinking and abstract deduction seem to drive AI mad. I found this article HERE on the BBC website and it’s worth reading.
AI is still dumber than humans?
It’s not about how AI think, it’s about how AI getting input (prompt). Since the time of the post, we have CoT, that drives AI to have IQ of 120:
And it helps AI to answer 2/3 of the questions correctly:
The remain question got partial correct:
In conclusion: AI may not replace humans, but humans with AI will
1 Like
AI may not replace humans, but humans with AI will
You are right that it is humans WITH AI, not AI WITH humans 
. That means: humans are still the masters. In other words: AI is still inferior to humans.
By the way, it depends on the masters how they deal with AI. Putin, for example, will use AI to wage wars against his neighbors. And that is very unfortunate.
Let me give you another example: Humans with motorbike is a lot faster than humans. But motorbike along is useless. So, does it make motorbike is inferior to humans?
does it make motorbike is inferior to humans?
Sure. I think you are confusing a man-made thing with a natural being. Even a housefly with no IQ can maneuver better than the best man-made AI-controlled drone.
Also, “AI is said to have an IQ of 120” is a humorless joke. Let me explain what IQ really means: If you tell a “normally intelligent” human to do something stupid (e.g., make a kamikaze attack on a moving train), that human will naturally refuse to do it. But an AI humanoid, or rather a robot, with 120 IQ will do it without hesitation. That is the real IQ that comes from the human brain and that the AI bot lacks.
It’s not real word. Today, many people use drugs, and they can do anything more than “something stupid”. A man using drugs is naturally or not? I mean “not man-made drugs”, they can be plants, leaves,… :D. And if you believe in God, so “human being” is natural(ly) or artificial(ly)?
It’s not the real world? 
You’re confusing mentally ill people with “normally intelligent” people - like defective NVIDA chips and AIs running amok. As an atheist, I only believe in the power of Mother Nature, who has more than 4 billion years of experience in creating living beings.
And if you believe in God , so “human being” is natural(ly) or artificial(ly)?
And human species is her most imperfect creation compared to other species. Not even a dog takes drugs to get “high,” but humans do. The word “artificial” (from the word “art”) refers to things made by humans, and once again you are confusing nature with man-made. Art, according to the Oxford definition, is “the expression or application of human creative ability and imagination.” Since when is “God” a human?
What is your point by this? Do you mean AI is man-made or natural being? Since I was using your sentence, AI is still inferior to humans, and remix it as motorbike is inferior to humans?, so it clearly that I’m consider AI is in the same man-made category as motorbike. So, your comparison between housefly or AI-drone makes no-sense?
Also, your example with kamikaze as “intelligent” is inappropriate, it should be about “believe” or “moral”, not about intelligent.
Sigh! When you quote something, please quote it in full and don’t cut anything (the word: SURE) to distort the whole sentence. The “SURE” refers to your provocative question
does it make the motorcycle inferior to humans?
And it is very clear enough for an answer. Continuing with the rest, I wanted to emphasize that AI is inferior even to the housefly…
My Vietnamese is not good enough to chat with you in Vietnamese, and your English is like my Vietnamese. So let’s stop discussing AI. OK?
Well, let’s summarize your logic with my very limited English:
- Motorbike is worst than human even though it is faster and goes farther than human
- AI is worst than housefly because it cannot fly a drone as well as housefly
In other words, if AI can do 99.99% jobs better, AI is still worst because of 0.01% jobs it cannot do?
In that case, I totally agree with you to stop discussing 
I am admit that I really cannot understand all the points in your posts. There are full of contradictions. That’s why I tried to clarify them before giving out the conclusion. But looks like that isn’t needed anymore.
83% thành viên diễn đàn không hỏi bài tập, còn bạn thì sao?