Could anyone please explain here my above point?
What is the differenece between human intelligence and currently understood Artificial Intelligence?
1 Like
Absolutely nobody knows.
The concept of “currently understood AI” doesn’t even make sense because “AI” is just the domain of algorithms that do more interesting things than the ones we usually program in COBOL. A vast domain.
Similarly “human intelligence” is an elusive concept - it’s hard to compare it to an LLM.
But take a look at this:
or this:
2 Likes
The human has consciousness, a life force, the computer machine does not have a life force, no consciousness! Think about these.
I fully agree with @dtonhofer and @gent.spah.
From a pragmatic point of view, we can also add universality and generalization. This is a very interesting topic in the context of AGI.
I recommend checking out Pedro Domingos’ book The Master Algorithm — it might provide some answers, or perhaps raise even more questions.
intelligence =/= wisdom.
At this point AI is 100% artificial wisdom since it needs data to learn and answers based on given data.
@gent.spah about this:
“The human has consciousness, a life force, the computer machine does not have a life force, no consciousness!”
…how would we know?
- Petri
The human has consciousness, a life force, the computer machine does not have a life force, no consciousness! Think about these.
That’s a religious take (i.e. metaphysics) - which may or may not be valid.
Edit: I just remembered the old anime “Key the Metal Idol” (early 90s) wherein human life-force is literally distilled out of victims to power the battle droids and mechatronic rock star idols of the evil megacorps run by a psychologically very deranged CEO, as the main character, who thinks (maybe wrongly?) that she is a robot tries to collect enough friends to become human (as in the tale of Pinocchio) That was disturbing, not for kids.
1 Like
At this point AI is 100% artificial wisdom since it needs data to learn and answers based on given data.
I don’t agree with this take.
Apart from the fact that search algorithms exist:
“Wisdom” is a social attribute - the body of knowledge you accumulate having lived a long time in a society, and the ability to apply this knowledge to propose solutions to life’s daily problems, but physical and metaphysical.
I know that everyone & his guard dog delivers this diagram:
But that diagram is the worst that a marketing boutique can deliver.
There is no fundamental difference between “data” and “information” except maybe for slight shift that “information” depends on the observer who interpretes some physical state (e.g. electric charge in large banks of capacitors) as a message open to further processing. Knowledge (maybe irrelevant or wrong knowledge) is inherent in a system that can process that information to achieve further goals (maybe to find food). Wisdom should not be in that diagram at all.
More on “information” in:
“Towards a Theory of Information: Information: Mystical Fluid or a Subject for Scientific Enquiry?” (Article in The Computer Journal · March 1985)
1 Like
Can we really say that Artificial Intelligence is a reflection of human intelligence?
Let me put it like this:
Humans are constantly shuffling and aligning thoughts — thoughts made up of nothing but sequences of words, powered by the intricate machinery of the human mind. With that mind, we shape meaning, build logic, express emotions — all through the medium of language.
Then we take those carefully ordered words, that inner dialogue, and feed it into machines. We pour language, behavior, and patterns of thought into algorithms — a mirror of our mental processes.
And what happens then?
The machine begins to detect patterns. It starts mimicking our understanding, replicating our reasoning — not because it “understands” or “feels,” but because it’s been trained on the echoes of our minds.
This, we now call Artificial Intelligence.
But here’s the strange — almost poetic — twist:
This machine’s so-called “intelligence” is not truly intelligence at all.
It’s the distilled shadow of our mind — not our intellect.
Because it wasn’t our intelligence that we taught the machine — it was the workings of our mind.
It was the structure of our thoughts, the rhythm of our language, the patterns of our decisions.
So maybe the machine doesn’t mimic human intelligence…
Maybe it mimics the mind — the thing that shuffles thoughts, plays with words, and builds meaning from noise.
And in that way, AI is not a reflection of our intelligence.
It’s a reflection of our mind
looking back at us, through code.
This is my understanding till now
How do you know? Have humans built or its an organism that the universe has created it?
In this existence everything is synchronised no matter if it seems so or not, its not random process, its a river like flow, and because of this synchronicity all is moving with the flow. Machines have no connection with that synchronicity therefore they are not aligned with the the whole, therefore they will drift towards a wrong direction.
It mights seem religious to you but it is existential, the nature of existence.
Machines have no connection with that synchronicity therefore they are not aligned with the whole
Maybe. But one can always argue that the universe built the “machine”. Via an intermediary. So that would indicate it’ all a “whole” anyway and machines are not more disconnected than anything else, just currently more clunky (although interestingly a steam engine feels much more alive than electrically powered engine, does it not?). Can you distinguish machine from non-machine if it is sufficiently complex? Consider this example which looks like someone left alien nanomachinery lying around:
Anyway, East Asian cultures are much less sanguine about such things than those in West Asia for reasons (there is no concept of tawhid for one) (see for example Animism, Rinri, Modernization; the Base of Japanese Robotics). A excerpt from a fascinating lecture by Douglas Lenat about building Cyc:
This was driven home to us at the 1986 Fifth-Generation Project conference in Tokyo, when we saw the ontology built by Japan’s answer to Cyc, named Electronic Dictionary Research (EDR). Their topmost distinction was between things with souls and things without souls. And large trees were in the former category, whereas small trees were in the latter category. We were astonished. . . but. . . so what!? We could still communicate with those people, and they with us; they seemed to us to have common sense, and vice versa. They and their EDR system knew that both types of trees needed water and sunlight and had roots, etc., they just had to represent each of those assertions as two separate rules instead of one, as we did in Cyc. No big deal.
Happy Easter! (Well, that’s just for my cultural sector really, but happiness and peace to all anyway 
we need some)
As a digression we have this: Why Everything in the Universe Turns More Complex. I like where that is going.
1 Like
Artificial intelligence never ever overcome Human intelligence due to extraordinary emotions, dynamic contexts as per situation and generate ideas as per situations, act according process and ancient rules and traditional strategies with np hard problems. We have many scenarios with numerous examples. Over billion people interest, i explored it.