artificial inteligence is a myth!!!
-
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:
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
Yes, young Padawan, neural networks are just a mathmatical model of the neurons that hopefully make up the grey mass between your ears. Training neural networks by the traditional feedback approaches has been found limited in many ways. Defining the topology and weights of a neural network to make it suitable for any task is an entirely different matter. Lazy people have simply tried to let one of the most powerful search algorithms[^] do that job and the results are really promising. The gray mass between your ears has been configured by the same algorithm, with the tiny drawback that it had begun to do so many millions of years before any of our ancestors was able to climb a tree and pick some fresh fruits there. Once that you have understood all that, then you may come to realize that the problem is not finding an adequate emulation of neurons or how 'mechanical' they appear to you. It's the complexety of the desired result that will make us take a little more time than we would like. Ok, here we go again. I forgot once more that you are the one and only authority on those things. You have looked at it, once again not seen the forest because of all those trees and therefore it's all just a myth.
At least artificial intelligence already is superior to natural stupidity
-
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!
Common general definition of that term would involve something along one or both of the following - A robot that can act in such a way to mimic many common human day to day behaviors such as driving a car, shopping and taking care of a child. - A computer that can interact with humans and also create new general ideas. So it can create a painting, write a book, criticize a play and banter about a favorite sports team. There is no artificial intelligence. And with the current state of that study there never will be.
-
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.
jschell wrote:
Just curious - where you live do a lot of people have two way wrist radios?
Certainly not the case where I am.Unless you live in another universe it's certainly possible where you are. How common it is was never in dispute.
jschell wrote:
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.First off: Flying cars - it's been done, just not in a way efficient enough for consumers (plus other issues like requiring additional licenses) Aliens - unless you're omniscient, you don't know that. It honestly seems very self centered to assume we're the only planet with life in the universe. Second, just because it doesn't exist now means it can never exist? Modern computers didn't exist 200 years ago, therefore they clearly cannot exist now and this conversation can't be taking place.
-
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
Oh sorry I should have posted In my humble opinion I think that we are not going to imitate human intelligence by for loops else etc what do you think and please dont slap me in the face
-
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
Fortunately, no one who knows anything about computers or intelligence has tried doing it that way since the 1960s.
Will Rogers never met me.
-
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.
I am not redefining anything. The claim was that "A.I. is a myth" because it does not compare to human inteligence. With the given definition of inteligence I argue that A.I. does exist and exceeds most human inteligence.
jschell wrote:
doesn't alter the fact that with the current normal definition there is no AI.
What current "normal" definition are you talking about? Are you claiming to be a scholar on A.I.? FYI there is no "normal" definition of A.I.. The most known/common test for AI is the Turing test, which is being questioned by all as to wether or not it proves anything. And I am sure you knew that... Stop trolling.
jschell wrote:
Redefining the term to something different and then answering that doesn't lead to that conclusion.
This is meaningless. My point was that if the question being asked is not understood by the asker (which is often the case), then how can the questioner confidently say it can not be mapped? The fact that one is asking the question tends to mean (tends to as questioning is also a method of teaching), that the questioner does not know the answer or how to obtain the answer. In that case they lack sufficient evidence to make any conclusion nor even make a hypothesis to set up an experiment to prove one outcome over the other. Lack of evidence does not mean there is no evidence. It just means it is not understood.
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.
-
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.
Sounds a little like my AC (Artificial Cockroach). It was designed to take a fixed set of inputs and then make an intelligent (hopefully) decison from an also fixed set of options. You give it it's inputs and it responds with the option (or action) it would like to do. It is configured by an evolutionary algorithm and each instance is 'born' with all the knowledge it will ever have. It also will never be able to come up with new responses. Just like a cockroach. What it can do is adapting quickly to new circumstances and finding ways of using it's options as good as possible. Like a cockroach it depends on evolution and a fast sequence of generations to do that. Despite it's limitations and very humble 'intelligence' it's really fascinating to study and it sure beats any 'if this else that' logic which never adapts.
At least artificial intelligence already is superior to natural stupidity
-
Sounds a little like my AC (Artificial Cockroach). It was designed to take a fixed set of inputs and then make an intelligent (hopefully) decison from an also fixed set of options. You give it it's inputs and it responds with the option (or action) it would like to do. It is configured by an evolutionary algorithm and each instance is 'born' with all the knowledge it will ever have. It also will never be able to come up with new responses. Just like a cockroach. What it can do is adapting quickly to new circumstances and finding ways of using it's options as good as possible. Like a cockroach it depends on evolution and a fast sequence of generations to do that. Despite it's limitations and very humble 'intelligence' it's really fascinating to study and it sure beats any 'if this else that' logic which never adapts.
At least artificial intelligence already is superior to natural stupidity
I don't think it's quite that complicated. And this one just modifies itself as it fails (it requires human interaction to assist it in discovering its failures, but it is generally able to tell when it failed, just not why). But that sounds rather interesting, I've never had much luck with genetic algorithms (but then again, I think I often try to jump in the deep end before learning how to swim).
