Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Correct. Apparently my phone has "AI" because it recognises a flower as a flower and applies a colour filter and background blur when I use my camera. This is not AI.

By the same extension of logic, any program that recognises input data and performs some form of pre-programmed logic is AI. ie. any computer program?



When young children start recognizing shapes, animals, colors, etc, you don’t consider that a sign of intelligence? What is it a sign of then?


I certainly consider that exemplar child intelligent. I'm happy to consider my pet dogs intelligent - some more than others:). And they are all leagues ahead of any "artificial" systems we've got.

And sorry, I don't have a definition of intelligence - but that's exactly the point. However I would require any definition of intelligence to include flexibility, self-awareness, world-modelling, curiousity, and goal setting.

Flexibility is surely one of the things that distinguishes a chess machine (or chatbot, or image recognition) from a child or a dog - the latter recognise and adapt to new situations & environments. Self-awareness seems a requirement for own goal-setting. Curiousity and world-modelling go together, and world-modelling is presumably required for exploring own goal-setting (a random walk is not intelligence).

All these things are so many worlds distant from google lens, or Big Blue.


A three year old child is already generally far beyond what any software can do.


Recognizing a flower is absolutely AI.

https://xkcd.com/1425/

ok - or a bird.



If that is intelligent behavior then literally any physical process is "intelligence" embodied, though the magnitude or intensity of this intelligence obviously varies based on what strictly is happening.

This is because anything that happens in reality is computable, and you have described a straightforward computation as "intelligence".

I actually happen to sincerely adhere to this perspective, as a particular flavor of panpsychism.


A battery discharging does not recognise flowers. The sun does not recognise flowers. I do not create an excess of energy by splitting atoms, these things are not equivalent at all levels of abstraction.


Of course not, and it is silly to try to paint my argument as trying to claim that. A battery discharging is not very intelligent, but the GGP implies that this exists as a gradient down to the lowest levels of physical dynamics.

Put another way, the complexity of the computation determines the complexity of the result. The sun+flower+ground system "recognizes" a flower by means of striking the flower and the surrounding area with photons and "recording" the result as the shadow.




Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: