AI is artificial intelligence. It is intelligence that is artificial. When one plays tic-tac-toe and the computer never loses, the computer is acting intelligently, but it was programmed to do that, so the intelligence is artificial. Asking for "true" artificial intelligence is like asking for "real" non-dairy creamer.
It is the job of the AI researcher to figure out how to tell a machine to act intelligently. Speech recognition, imaging, and simulations are all areas that benefit from this.
The gap that we haven't yet been able to leap is teaching a computer about understanding. The computer may know it won at tic-tac-toe, but it doesn't understand why or how. A computer may play chess really well, but it has no outside concept of the game. The computer lacks true intelligence (not "true artificial intelligence"). The computer needs to understand that the opponent is playing to win; that the words someone uses mean something and have a particular syntax; that the objects it is identifying in an image are real, definable things. So far, it can't, and that is where you see the failure in AI, when in reality it is the failure for humans to understand themselves and their own thought processes.
I do agree that a lot of AI stuff is hype. It's insanity to believe that humankind is getting closer to creating thinking machines when our own understanding of the thought process is ill-defined. I think the field really needs to establish realistic goals before continuing. But what do I know? I'm just an undergrad.
Obviously someone has given some form or method of fuck, since the announcement has appeared on a few websites. You are entitled to your own opinion. Your persuasive arguments and trite use of the word "trite" make me believe you have nothing constructive to say.
Re:Why does it matter that he's in England...?
on
Ask Robert Young
·
· Score: 1
No, no, no. It says that he is England. It's hard to communicate with a nation.
Webster's says that the plural of virus is viruses. However, were you an ancient Roman, you would disagree. The form of virus (L. a slimy liquid) needs to be declined as a "type 1" masculine noun: (case - singular - plural) nominative - virus - viri genative - viri - virorum dative - viro - viris accusative - virum - viros ablative - viro - viris As you can see, virii would be right out; it would be viri (given the virus was the subject of a sentence, as opposed to the direct object, etc.). However, we're talking about an English word, so it's 'viruses'. Sorry if I bored you;-)
Slashdot Mirror
AI is artificial intelligence. It is intelligence that is artificial. When one plays tic-tac-toe and the computer never loses, the computer is acting intelligently, but it was programmed to do that, so the intelligence is artificial. Asking for "true" artificial intelligence is like asking for "real" non-dairy creamer.
It is the job of the AI researcher to figure out how to tell a machine to act intelligently. Speech recognition, imaging, and simulations are all areas that benefit from this.
The gap that we haven't yet been able to leap is teaching a computer about understanding. The computer may know it won at tic-tac-toe, but it doesn't understand why or how. A computer may play chess really well, but it has no outside concept of the game. The computer lacks true intelligence (not "true artificial intelligence"). The computer needs to understand that the opponent is playing to win; that the words someone uses mean something and have a particular syntax; that the objects it is identifying in an image are real, definable things. So far, it can't, and that is where you see the failure in AI, when in reality it is the failure for humans to understand themselves and their own thought processes.
I do agree that a lot of AI stuff is hype. It's insanity to believe that humankind is getting closer to creating thinking machines when our own understanding of the thought process is ill-defined. I think the field really needs to establish realistic goals before continuing. But what do I know? I'm just an undergrad.
You've got modded down!
Obviously someone has given some form or method of fuck, since the announcement has appeared on a few websites. You are entitled to your own opinion. Your persuasive arguments and trite use of the word "trite" make me believe you have nothing constructive to say.
No, no, no. It says that he is England. It's hard to communicate with a nation.
Webster's says that the plural of virus is viruses. However, were you an ancient Roman, you would disagree. The form of virus (L. a slimy liquid) needs to be declined as a "type 1" masculine noun: (case - singular - plural) nominative - virus - viri genative - viri - virorum dative - viro - viris accusative - virum - viros ablative - viro - viris As you can see, virii would be right out; it would be viri (given the virus was the subject of a sentence, as opposed to the direct object, etc.). However, we're talking about an English word, so it's 'viruses'. Sorry if I bored you ;-)