> The field of AI research has a reputation for disregarding the value of other fields [...] It’s likely that, being unaware of much of the research in psychology on cognitive biases or how a psychic’s con works, they stumbled into a mechanism and made chatbots that fooled many of the chatbot makers themselves.
Just because cognitive scientists don't know everything about how intelligence works (or on what it is) doesn't mean that they know nothing. There has been a lot of progress in cognitive science, in the last decade in particular on reasoning.
> based on ill-defined terms like "intelligence".
The whole discussion is about "artificial intelligence". Arguably AI researchers ought to have a fairly well defined stance of what "intelligence" means and can't use a trick like "nobody knows what intelligence is" to escape criticism.
From the article:
> The field of AI research has a reputation for disregarding the value of other fields [...] It’s likely that, being unaware of much of the research in psychology on cognitive biases or how a psychic’s con works, they stumbled into a mechanism and made chatbots that fooled many of the chatbot makers themselves.
Just because cognitive scientists don't know everything about how intelligence works (or on what it is) doesn't mean that they know nothing. There has been a lot of progress in cognitive science, in the last decade in particular on reasoning.
> based on ill-defined terms like "intelligence".
The whole discussion is about "artificial intelligence". Arguably AI researchers ought to have a fairly well defined stance of what "intelligence" means and can't use a trick like "nobody knows what intelligence is" to escape criticism.