|
The juxtaposition of a negative with an affirmative parallel. Yes, I probably misread what you were saying.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, It is never compared to human intelligence and hence named Artificial 
|
|
|
|
|
RJ_Zed wrote: It is never compared to human intelligence
I disagree. People often think AI will replace all humans and become more intelligent.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
@Ryann we are the creators of AI, we just feed the info to them, they just adapt to what we teach. There are possibilities of them to overcome us, but we are the creators of them. We have the ability to do such calculations but we dont
|
|
|
|
|
RJ_Zed wrote: they just adapt to what we teach
No. Again, all computers do is follow exactly what they have been programmed to do. They cannot decide or adapt.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Humans have been creating systems with "basic intelligence" for decades perhaps centuries. Any system where the outcome is used to moderate behaviour may be considered intelligent; think of negative feedback in an amplifier for example.
However "advanced intelligence" requires the ability to imagine future outcomes and thereby develop better behaviour for both new and old situations largely avoiding trial and error. By that standard even we humans are lacking!
|
|
|
|
|
|
N_tro_P wrote: The truth is we have been doing AI for a while.
Exactly. I feel the new found fancy that the mass media (and some VC companies) have taken to AI silly. Having worked in the field (specifically expert systems) for about 30 years, I find that many critics of AI are unaware that several aspects of our daily lives are impacted by AI algorithms.
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe the Webster has a very restricted definition of the word intelligence. You say they are highly intelligent but I say they give the impression that they be highly intelligent. They don't really think and understand anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
N_tro_P wrote: What is a processor doing if not thinking?
It's moving bits of voltage around because it is told to. It only does exactly what it is told to. No thinking. A computer never thinks. It cannot. It is the dumbest machine in the world, it only does what it is told, period. Nothing more, nothing less.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
You are right. My understanding of the subject is bad.
I have found articles on the internet explaining the meaning of the intelligence and how artificial intelligence can be called intelligence.
As you say intelligence does not need system to be self aware.
I think English meaning of intelligence does not include understanding also.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 12651605 wrote: They don't really think and understand anything.
And what gave you the impression they did?
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
Calling it "intelligence" implies this. I may be wrong about the meaning in English.
|
|
|
|
|
N_tro_P wrote: The misconception is that the systems are self-aware (Skynet etc.) They are not.
Well if they are not self-aware, they are not truly AI.
Wiki Pedia "The history of artificial intelligence (AI) began in antiquity, with myths, stories and rumors of artificial beings endowed with intelligence or consciousness by master craftsmen; as Pamela McCorduck writes, AI began with "an ancient wish to forge the gods.""
If people are calming to create AI and it is not self-aware, they are not creating AI, they are creating something else. If I read the history about it, it seems to me the two (intelligence and self aware) go hand in hand. History aside, my view of artificial intelligence are more in line with the historians.
"Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence."
<< please vote!! >></div>
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed, I have not studied AI... I have a concept of it though... My concept and the majority human concept of AI is that AI is self-aware... We've generated that concept from movies via historians. Anything other than that is not truly AI. I'm sorry this is my opinion. If you where indoctrinated to believe AI to be something else, then so be it.
The concept you are studied seems to be a pirate of the real thing... Not saying that it doesn't have its benefits.
"Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence."
<< please vote!! >></div>
modified 27-Jul-16 2:53am.
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Asimov has a lot to answer for!.
I must admit my idea of AI was distilled from SF reading so hearing you discuss reality is disappointing. Is there a definable point at which a really complex program can be classified as an AI or is it the ability to learn and adapt that defines it?
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would not have called the supervised version AI, that is just programming, complex maybe but human originated. The unsupervised sounds fascinating.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
|
How do one define "artificial"? I mean, is everything human made "artificial"?
|
|
|
|
|
Member 12651605 wrote: Artificial intelligence is not really intelligence
Right. That's why it's called "artificial".
/ravi
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
