Here’s an interesting take on the probable mid to long term future of AI by Nick Bostrom. Read at your leisure, highly recommended.
https : / / www . amazon . com/Superintelligence-Dangers-Strategies-Nick-Bostrom/dp/0199678111
IMHO Nick always seems to be a bit high on illegal substances and principally throws out crowd-wowing stuff (i.e. airport bookshop books) while leaving the hard work for others to do.
Meanwhile, currently on my desk, Gary Marcus being extremely sceptical about anything that is currently on offer:
In an age of breathless predictions and sky-high valuations, cognitive scientist Gary Marcus has emerged as one of the best-known skeptics of generative artificial intelligence (AI). In fact, he recently wrote a book about his concerns, Taming Silicon Valley, in which he made the case that “we are not on the best path right now, either technically or morally.” Marcus—who has spent his career examining both natural and artificial intelligence—explained his reasoning in a recent conversation with Leah Hoffmann.
In particular: 
People have proposed a number of different benchmarks for evaluating progress in AI. What do you make of them?
Here’s a benchmark I proposed in 2014 that I think is still beyond current AI. I call it the comprehension challenge. The idea is that an AI system should be able to watch a movie, build a cognitive model of what is going on, and answer questions. Why did the characters do this? Why is that line funny? What’s the irony in this scene?
Right now, LLMs might get it sort of right some of the time, but nowhere near as reliably as the average person. If a character says at the end of the movie, “I see dead people,” everybody in the cinema has this “Oh, my god” moment. Everybody in the cinema has followed the world of the movie and suddenly realized that a principle they thought was true does not apply. When we have AI that can do that with new movies that are not in the training data, I’ll be genuinely impressed.
I find Nick quite knowledgeable in his field of work, his published papers are also a handful. I guess to each his own 
Absolutely (do I start to sound like ChatGPT? …
), but frankly he seems to worry about the wrong things (and also about completely untestable metaphysics like the “simulation hypothesis”, which is of course the domain of scifi fun of the Greg Egan variety and about which nothing useful can be said as there is nothing that indicates what the thing could be that the simulation is running on, which could be anything of arbitrary power)
Anyway, as posted some time ago:
The above I posted in the context of an article on the “Future of Life Institute” safety assessment report:
First what is super intelligence? I think to understand intelligence we need to understand it source first!
Not really.
As the saying goes I know it when I see it.
Alternatively, it can be described as the situation where you are continually behind the curve and being bested by an opponent in a (real-world, unconstrained) game of wits. The outcry “how did you know!” is a sign of that.
But even so, it depends
Is Sherlock more intelligent than Moriarty?
ChatGPT said:
That depends on how you define intelligence!
Sherlock Holmes and Professor Moriarty are often depicted as intellectual equals, with Moriarty sometimes even described as Holmes’ superior in raw intellect. However, there are key differences in how they apply their intelligence:
Sherlock Holmes excels in deductive reasoning, observation, and forensic analysis. He applies his intelligence to solving crimes and upholding justice.
Professor Moriarty is a mathematical genius and master strategist, using his intellect for criminal enterprises, often staying steps ahead of everyone, including Holmes.
Holmes himself acknowledges Moriarty’s intelligence, calling him the “Napoleon of crime.” However, Holmes ultimately defeats Moriarty at Reichenbach Falls, suggesting that his intelligence—combined with his ability to predict and counter Moriarty’s moves—gives him the upper hand.
So, is Sherlock more intelligent? Not necessarily—Moriarty may be his intellectual equal or even superior in some ways. But Holmes is ultimately more effective in the battle of wits.
You gotta search far and wide about intelligence and even non-science subjects. Life is multidimensional not just numbers.
The meaning of this response is ambiguous.
Life may not be “just numbers” but its mainly a game of chance with some search heuristics thrown in, none of them outside of complexity class P, all hidden under a cognitive system that gives the pervasive illusion of control and a knowable world.
As Larry Niven said “Intelligence is just a tool, and it is not always used intelligently”.
It’s not a chance. It’s all synchronized; you think this universe is run by chances! It’s all synchronized from the blade of grass to the galaxies of course in manners our brains can’t comprehend, but nonetheless. I said numbers because AI is a mathematical transformation; it uses numbers, and numbers have been invented by humans. They are utilitarian but do they represent truth, I am not sure.
Nick Bostrom defines it as: “any intellect that greatly exceeds the cognitive performance of humans in virtually all domains of interest”. It’s just a term, the meaning behind it is what matters.
