This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Seems like this article had some disagreements coming in over the weekend. This involves the extent and breakdown of the topic. A quick link check produced the following:
These topics are not subsets of CI, although they might be related. Machine learning and Expert systems should be removed from 'related topics' as is explained at the end of the first article paragraph. Lets keep the disagreements to the discussion. -- moxon 17:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't think this is entirely accurate. The article states that ANNs are closely *related* to ML. They're not just closely related, they are common algorithms used for ML. This article gives the false impression that ANNs are actually separate. I certainly understand why ANNs are listed under CI, but that shouldn't make it exclusive, especially since ANNs have been so common in ML for so long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmacglashan ( talk • contribs) 07:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't get it: First ci "either rejects fuzzy systems or ignores neural networks", then both are listed as part of ci. ??? And more generally, saying what the two sides (ci and ml) reject is not a clear way to explain what they are. This ci beginner needs help. Thx, "alyosha" 03:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Do we really need a seperate article for a specific arbitrary, mechanical distinction on ways to achieve weak AI? How about this article gets redirected to a new article on the computational aproaches to AI? - Jake11...
Computational intelligence is a subset of AI. It is an alternative to GOFAI and the 'neats'. In addition Evolutionary computation is not equal to Genetic algorithms and Fuzzy logic is not an algorithm. -- moxon 10:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I would add a third use of the term: (3) a synonym for AI. I'd say that Computational Intelligence uses CI in such a way.
Regards, -- zeno 11:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
CI is clearly not well defined. To sum up (may be somewhat abusively), CI can be taken for a synonym of AI, or as a subfield of AI.
Why not start by explaining that --explicitly giving some pointers showing both viewpoints-- before continuing with the "subfield" view?
Another option is to write a "Controversy" section but I am not sure this is worth it.
Regards, --[unregistered user] 19 August, 2011 (UTC)
Answer: It can be either.
First a source: Russell & Norvig, describing modern approaches to AI, write "recent years have seen a revolution in the content and the methodology of work in AI" and "some have characterized this change as a victory of the 'neats'" and later that "neural networks also fit into this trend." They are implicitly saying: neural networks are neat.
The precise mathematics used in genetic algorithms and neural networks can be very 'neat'. And these are clearly in CI's area.
Also, the sloppy, ad hoc symbolic AI epitomized by Doug Lenat's Cyc is 'scruffy', but it's good old fashioned symbolic AI, and is not in CI's area.
The neat/scruffy distinction is orthogonal to the GOFAI/CI distinction: there are cases of neat GOFAI (logic programming), scruffy GOFAI (semantic webs), neat CI (pattern matching neural networks), and scruffy CI.
If there are sources that disagree with this analysis, I'd love to see them. ---- CharlesGillingham 03:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi
If we were too take all CI topics and fields out of AI what would be left ? I am a little confused on that part.
Chaosdruid ( talk) 22:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I seems like this article is related to artificial intelligence, especially since it is included in the category artificial intelligence, as well as having a link to the artificial intelligence portal, but the body text doesn't mention artificial intelligence at all. The relation between the two topics needs to be made clear. — Kri ( talk) 14:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Fuzzy Logic is by definition not probabilistic. It is an degree of assignment to a specific concept, in the sense of e.g. property or truth, with partial truth. Probability is a chance of a specific outcome based on a repeatedly occuring events based on partial knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neum.dan ( talk • contribs) 12:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Seems like this article had some disagreements coming in over the weekend. This involves the extent and breakdown of the topic. A quick link check produced the following:
These topics are not subsets of CI, although they might be related. Machine learning and Expert systems should be removed from 'related topics' as is explained at the end of the first article paragraph. Lets keep the disagreements to the discussion. -- moxon 17:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't think this is entirely accurate. The article states that ANNs are closely *related* to ML. They're not just closely related, they are common algorithms used for ML. This article gives the false impression that ANNs are actually separate. I certainly understand why ANNs are listed under CI, but that shouldn't make it exclusive, especially since ANNs have been so common in ML for so long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmacglashan ( talk • contribs) 07:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't get it: First ci "either rejects fuzzy systems or ignores neural networks", then both are listed as part of ci. ??? And more generally, saying what the two sides (ci and ml) reject is not a clear way to explain what they are. This ci beginner needs help. Thx, "alyosha" 03:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Do we really need a seperate article for a specific arbitrary, mechanical distinction on ways to achieve weak AI? How about this article gets redirected to a new article on the computational aproaches to AI? - Jake11...
Computational intelligence is a subset of AI. It is an alternative to GOFAI and the 'neats'. In addition Evolutionary computation is not equal to Genetic algorithms and Fuzzy logic is not an algorithm. -- moxon 10:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I would add a third use of the term: (3) a synonym for AI. I'd say that Computational Intelligence uses CI in such a way.
Regards, -- zeno 11:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
CI is clearly not well defined. To sum up (may be somewhat abusively), CI can be taken for a synonym of AI, or as a subfield of AI.
Why not start by explaining that --explicitly giving some pointers showing both viewpoints-- before continuing with the "subfield" view?
Another option is to write a "Controversy" section but I am not sure this is worth it.
Regards, --[unregistered user] 19 August, 2011 (UTC)
Answer: It can be either.
First a source: Russell & Norvig, describing modern approaches to AI, write "recent years have seen a revolution in the content and the methodology of work in AI" and "some have characterized this change as a victory of the 'neats'" and later that "neural networks also fit into this trend." They are implicitly saying: neural networks are neat.
The precise mathematics used in genetic algorithms and neural networks can be very 'neat'. And these are clearly in CI's area.
Also, the sloppy, ad hoc symbolic AI epitomized by Doug Lenat's Cyc is 'scruffy', but it's good old fashioned symbolic AI, and is not in CI's area.
The neat/scruffy distinction is orthogonal to the GOFAI/CI distinction: there are cases of neat GOFAI (logic programming), scruffy GOFAI (semantic webs), neat CI (pattern matching neural networks), and scruffy CI.
If there are sources that disagree with this analysis, I'd love to see them. ---- CharlesGillingham 03:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi
If we were too take all CI topics and fields out of AI what would be left ? I am a little confused on that part.
Chaosdruid ( talk) 22:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I seems like this article is related to artificial intelligence, especially since it is included in the category artificial intelligence, as well as having a link to the artificial intelligence portal, but the body text doesn't mention artificial intelligence at all. The relation between the two topics needs to be made clear. — Kri ( talk) 14:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Fuzzy Logic is by definition not probabilistic. It is an degree of assignment to a specific concept, in the sense of e.g. property or truth, with partial truth. Probability is a chance of a specific outcome based on a repeatedly occuring events based on partial knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neum.dan ( talk • contribs) 12:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)