Back at the time when Deep Blue won chess match against Kasparov everyone in the media said about superior intelligence of Deep Blue.
While I at that time clearly realized that IBM just built brute-force "bulldozer" which can look for 200 million positions per second. Even with that power it had only a slight advantage over Kasparov who can look at only a handful of positions per second.
Now, we have another generation of "intelligent" machines based on deep learning but I see this as just upgraded version of brute-force "bulldozers". Now, it takes hundreds of millions of samples to infer the rules which human can infer from only a thousand or even less samples.
So I would call truly intelligent machine which can learn to play chess or go looking/playing only to a few thousands examples and calculating only a few moves ahead and not more than a few moves per second. Obviously that machine would beat human intelligence completely.
Although, such machine still may not have self-consciousness with qualia but this yet another big challenge.
While I at that time clearly realized that IBM just built brute-force "bulldozer" which can look for 200 million positions per second. Even with that power it had only a slight advantage over Kasparov who can look at only a handful of positions per second.
Now, we have another generation of "intelligent" machines based on deep learning but I see this as just upgraded version of brute-force "bulldozers". Now, it takes hundreds of millions of samples to infer the rules which human can infer from only a thousand or even less samples.
So I would call truly intelligent machine which can learn to play chess or go looking/playing only to a few thousands examples and calculating only a few moves ahead and not more than a few moves per second. Obviously that machine would beat human intelligence completely.
Although, such machine still may not have self-consciousness with qualia but this yet another big challenge.