artificial inteligence is a myth!!!
-
The definition of intelligence is 1.The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. Honestly from that meaning alone, I would say many systems, ones that were not even meant to be A.I., are in fact more intelligent than the average human. I am not joking here. Think about it. Think about what social networks currently do. They aquire knowledge about you and your network an aply skills of successful matching of advertising campaigns and further networking. There is not a human being on this planet that can do that more efficiently. I also have studied A.I. and there is plenty of it already out there. Maybe it does not meat your standards of being intellegent. But then again, maybe you just aren't very intelligent. So your standards are irrelevent.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
If you are going to slam someone, make sure your post is impeachable, i.e. "an aply", "meat". Dave.
-
Any programmer who thinks that we are going to reach the human intelligence by if switchs elses for loops, is either crazy or has inhaled a pound of cocaine
I see a lot of people responding that technology will evolve to the point where we will have good AI. I don't think that is what you are saying so I am not sure why they are using that as their argument. I agree, with current technology and if elses and loops, we will not get to AI.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
If you are going to slam someone, make sure your post is impeachable, i.e. "an aply", "meat". Dave.
Take the 'an aply' up with google. https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+Intelligence&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=&safe=active[^] "meat".. Ok thats mine:) But there is irony in it... People fight A.I. reasoning because it simply is not living ;P it was not intentional though
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
This is a huge topic as you really need to define what you mean by human intelligence first. If you mean conciousness then yes there is an issue - philosophers for thousands of years have been trying to figure out what conciousness is, we still seem to be none the wiser. If by intelligence you mean the ability to make decisions quickly, accurately and learn from mistakes then I would say that AI is pretty darn good! A couple of examples (one from my own experience): - I have used SAPI for voice recognition in speech recognition software[^] I have written and the accuracy is fairly amazing. SAPI will learn from mistakes and the more it is used the better it becomes at word recognition. - I also believe that the google driverless car[^] is going to be quite something. So all in all I think AI really is doing very well - if you leave out the 'conciousness' part which has puzzled even some of the most insightful Buddhist monks who have spent years in caves studying their own minds through meditation... I am guessing though that you have something specific in mind.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
GuyThiebaut wrote:
If by intelligence you mean the ability to make decisions quickly, accurately and learn from mistakes then I would say that AI is pretty darn good!
I'm not sure the speed it comes to that decision matters for determining intelligence (though it may help place it on a relative scale of how intelligent it is), but I agree otherwise. A system I developed for work is like that. I wasn't intending to do anything with AI, nor do I have much knowledge in that field (an interest, but I haven't put much effort into it), but it just sort of came together that way. It's not particularly advanced AI either, but it takes some input, finds a way to describe it, and uses that description to find similar data. When it fails, it can be shown more data, adjusts its description, and tries again. It's surprisingly effective, and does a task that previously had to be done by a human.
-
GuyThiebaut wrote:
If by intelligence you mean the ability to make decisions quickly, accurately and learn from mistakes then I would say that AI is pretty darn good!
I'm not sure the speed it comes to that decision matters for determining intelligence (though it may help place it on a relative scale of how intelligent it is), but I agree otherwise. A system I developed for work is like that. I wasn't intending to do anything with AI, nor do I have much knowledge in that field (an interest, but I haven't put much effort into it), but it just sort of came together that way. It's not particularly advanced AI either, but it takes some input, finds a way to describe it, and uses that description to find similar data. When it fails, it can be shown more data, adjusts its description, and tries again. It's surprisingly effective, and does a task that previously had to be done by a human.
What you describe sounds fascinating and if it were possible to write an article on it for CP, without revealing any intellectual property, I am sure it would be of interest to many people(I would certainly would be interested in reading more about it):thumbsup:
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
-
I'm beginning to think that human intelligence is a myth!
VS2010/Atmel Studio 6.0 ToDo Manager Extension
Version 3.0 now available. There is no place like 127.0.0.1Ah. You've been looking at QA then... :sigh:
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
-
The definition of intelligence is 1.The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. Honestly from that meaning alone, I would say many systems, ones that were not even meant to be A.I., are in fact more intelligent than the average human. I am not joking here. Think about it. Think about what social networks currently do. They aquire knowledge about you and your network an aply skills of successful matching of advertising campaigns and further networking. There is not a human being on this planet that can do that more efficiently. I also have studied A.I. and there is plenty of it already out there. Maybe it does not meat your standards of being intellegent. But then again, maybe you just aren't very intelligent. So your standards are irrelevent.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Have you ever used neural networks i did, they dont learn they are just a mathematic code that adjust the output based on previows input-output examples and that is if the problem you want to solve can be mathematically modelled if not then neural networks is useless. My friend real inteligence cant have a mathematicall model so it cant be programmed.
-
Vasily Tserekh wrote:
also my parents are russians and you REALLY know they are not stupids
Russians are just as capable of being stupid as the rest of the world, and smart parents can have stupid children, so I fail to see what point you're trying to make. (Not saying anything about you specifically either way, just that your point makes no sense.)
-
What you describe sounds fascinating and if it were possible to write an article on it for CP, without revealing any intellectual property, I am sure it would be of interest to many people(I would certainly would be interested in reading more about it):thumbsup:
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
I'd love to, but as you say, IP is an issue. I've been trying to figure out a more general application of the ideas, but I haven't been able to so far. Plus I think it needs a bit more polish (the code in the core is a mess...it works, it's just not pretty yet).
-
lewax00 wrote:
just that your point makes no sense.)
As most of the things he writes. He probably just enjoys taking the spot light in a turbulent thread once in a while.
At least artificial intelligence already is superior to natural stupidity
no you are wromg the problem is that i just speak my mind, sometimes people with a lot of knowledge give me a good answer and thats make me better. Sometimes people are offendeD somehow with my posts(i do not offend anyone). I dont know how most of you lack of sense of humor BUt that doesnt matter TO ME beacause I dont get paid for reputation points instead of someones in this page(maybe you?)
-
I'd love to, but as you say, IP is an issue. I've been trying to figure out a more general application of the ideas, but I haven't been able to so far. Plus I think it needs a bit more polish (the code in the core is a mess...it works, it's just not pretty yet).
When you do manage to publish something on this - let me know as this is something that I could make use of :)
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
-
Ah. You've been looking at QA then... :sigh:
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
I very rarely wonder there!
VS2010/Atmel Studio 6.0 ToDo Manager Extension
Version 3.0 now available. There is no place like 127.0.0.1 -
men thats offensive, thats my opinion if you disagree you can make your points not make offensive jokes, also my parents are russians and you REALLY know they are not stupids
Have we not been there already? If I remember correctly, another one of your opinions was that if you don't understand C++ and therefore don't like it, then everybody else must also dislike it for the same reasons. And I also remember your reactions when someone does not share your opinions. Therefore you may be a totally misunderstood genius, so forgive us mere mortals. Or maybe you really don't realize how provokative, arrogant and not so intelligent your behavior may make you appear. Looking at your past posts, I prefer to think that you are deliberately posting rough 'opinions' and just enjoy defending them to the bitter end. That would make you a troll. Not the worst kind, but a troll nonetheless.
At least artificial intelligence already is superior to natural stupidity
-
no you are wromg the problem is that i just speak my mind, sometimes people with a lot of knowledge give me a good answer and thats make me better. Sometimes people are offendeD somehow with my posts(i do not offend anyone). I dont know how most of you lack of sense of humor BUt that doesnt matter TO ME beacause I dont get paid for reputation points instead of someones in this page(maybe you?)
Vasily Tserekh wrote:
no you are wromg the problem is that i just speak my mind
So do I.
Vasily Tserekh wrote:
sometimes people with a lot of knowledge give me a good answer and thats make me better
Define 'good answer that makes you better'. By all I have read from you that would be those answers that agree with whatever you have come up with.
Vasily Tserekh wrote:
Sometimes people are offendeD somehow
Not somehow. You usually throw some broad generalization at us and proclaim it to be the one and only absolute truth. It must be because that's what you have concluded on that particular subject. Period. How could anybody dare to think differently?
Vasily Tserekh wrote:
i do not offend anyone
Another one of your absulutely true opinions?
Vasily Tserekh wrote:
I dont know how most of you lack of sense of humor
Perhaps you should decorate your posts with the joke icon more often, just to give us a hint.
Vasily Tserekh wrote:
BUt that doesnt matter TO ME beacause I dont get paid for reputation points instead of someones in this page(maybe you?)
Yes. You caught me. I make my living with reputation points. And what do you do? Judging by your 'opinions' it can't be too much programming. Are there really professional trolls?
At least artificial intelligence already is superior to natural stupidity
-
Have you ever used neural networks i did, they dont learn they are just a mathematic code that adjust the output based on previows input-output examples and that is if the problem you want to solve can be mathematically modelled if not then neural networks is useless. My friend real inteligence cant have a mathematicall model so it cant be programmed.
Vasily Tserekh wrote:
Have you ever used neural networks i did, they dont learn they are just a mathematic code that adjust the output based on previows input-output examples and that is if the problem you want to solve can be mathematically modelled if not then neural networks is useless.
Yes I have used them. And by your description I think you barely studied them. It is not as simple as that unless you are talking about simple neural networks. When you involve hidden layers and different learning theories (yes they do learn) you can model things methematically. The whole point is to use it when the mathematical model is unkown (i.e. you do not know if one exists but theorize it does). In these cases the performance is still often better than humans because they can respond quicker and with better results. Also, NN are not the only form of A.I. It is actually a tool to use when making an A.I. system. Humans are not intelligent just because they have a Neural Network. They have many other things going on as well (obviously). The same is true with digital programs. But their things that are going on may end up slightly different allowing them to elevate their inteligence (e.g. being connected to a database vs. being connected to a brain of memories)
Vasily Tserekh wrote:
My friend real inteligence cant have a mathematicall model so it cant be programmed.
How are you so certain? Show me inteligence that can not be "mapped" as you say, and I will show you how maybe you just are not inteligent enough to map it.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
Vasily Tserekh wrote:
no you are wromg the problem is that i just speak my mind
So do I.
Vasily Tserekh wrote:
sometimes people with a lot of knowledge give me a good answer and thats make me better
Define 'good answer that makes you better'. By all I have read from you that would be those answers that agree with whatever you have come up with.
Vasily Tserekh wrote:
Sometimes people are offendeD somehow
Not somehow. You usually throw some broad generalization at us and proclaim it to be the one and only absolute truth. It must be because that's what you have concluded on that particular subject. Period. How could anybody dare to think differently?
Vasily Tserekh wrote:
i do not offend anyone
Another one of your absulutely true opinions?
Vasily Tserekh wrote:
I dont know how most of you lack of sense of humor
Perhaps you should decorate your posts with the joke icon more often, just to give us a hint.
Vasily Tserekh wrote:
BUt that doesnt matter TO ME beacause I dont get paid for reputation points instead of someones in this page(maybe you?)
Yes. You caught me. I make my living with reputation points. And what do you do? Judging by your 'opinions' it can't be too much programming. Are there really professional trolls?
At least artificial intelligence already is superior to natural stupidity
one question you shouldnt be watching the game you country made a gol you should be happy about that :laugh: intead of arguing with me
-
Vasily Tserekh wrote:
thats my particular point of view after watch the current state of the art of the AI
Because as we all know, fields never improve and never become more advanced. We still use the exact same technology we used at the dawn of time, and nothing thought to be previously impossible has ever been achieved.
lewax00 wrote:
Because as we all know, fields never improve and never become more advanced.
Look at the advances in medicine in the past 50 years. And the past 200. Look at the advances in computers in the past 50 years. Look at the advances in bio-engineering in the past 50 years. Look at the 'advances' in parapsychology in the past 50 years. New sciences which can produce results tend to advance quickly. Those that can't - don't. AI is a new science. So why isn't there an AI now that is at least as smart as, for example, a dog?
-
The definition of intelligence is 1.The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. Honestly from that meaning alone, I would say many systems, ones that were not even meant to be A.I., are in fact more intelligent than the average human. I am not joking here. Think about it. Think about what social networks currently do. They aquire knowledge about you and your network an aply skills of successful matching of advertising campaigns and further networking. There is not a human being on this planet that can do that more efficiently. I also have studied A.I. and there is plenty of it already out there. Maybe it does not meat your standards of being intellegent. But then again, maybe you just aren't very intelligent. So your standards are irrelevent.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
I also have studied A.I. and there is plenty of it already out there. Maybe it does not meat your standards of being intellegent
Redefining the terms to refute the argument doesn't alter the fact that with the current normal definition there is no AI.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
But then again, maybe you just aren't very intelligent. So your standards are irrelevent
Redefining the term to something different and then answering that doesn't lead to that conclusion.
-
lewax00 wrote:
Because as we all know, fields never improve and never become more advanced.
Look at the advances in medicine in the past 50 years. And the past 200. Look at the advances in computers in the past 50 years. Look at the advances in bio-engineering in the past 50 years. Look at the 'advances' in parapsychology in the past 50 years. New sciences which can produce results tend to advance quickly. Those that can't - don't. AI is a new science. So why isn't there an AI now that is at least as smart as, for example, a dog?
jschell wrote:
So why isn't there an AI now that is at least as smart as, for example, a dog?
In a way, we have[^]. Any field that relies on another can only advance so far on its own, just as AI relies to some extent on neuroscience and electrical engineering. For example, the science behind something like a warp drive works out, we can even figure out how much energy it would take, the only problem is we don't know how to apply the energy in a way to do it.
-
My father recently mentioned how, as a kid, they marveled at the impossibility of the comic strip detective Dick Tracy's two-way wrist radio. Take a lesson from history and never say never.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
W∴ Balboos wrote:
My father recently mentioned how, as a kid, they marveled at the impossibility of the comic strip detective Dick Tracy's two-way wrist radio.
Just curious - where you live do a lot of people have two way wrist radios? Certainly not the case where I am. I can also note that none of the following exist either - flying cars - PSI powers - Faster than light travel - Aliens - Superheroes - Minature people living in a dome - Many, many other things. And neither does Artificial Intelligence. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but cherry picking a few items that match current culture ignores the vast, vast number of things that do not and probably never will exist.
