![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Editor on this article, 69.247.131.76 has a reserve lookup of
Comcast Cable Communications, Inc. NASHVILLE-21 (NET-69-247-128-0-1) 69.247.128.0 - 69.247.159.255
Which would seem to indicate that they come from the same city as this companies HQ, given the nature of the edits by that user, I beleieve there is a high probability that there is a conflict of interest here, tagging the article as such 82.32.73.70 ( talk) 11:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Clearly you are an expert in these matters. Your insight will be valuable. We will stick with the facts, and watch the use of slogans. We'll review the WP:PCK and make adjustments. Can you contact me at 0222@usa.net for further discussion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.131.76 ( talk) 15:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
This is written like an advertisement, tag replaced. Several other tags are also appropriate, including probably conflict-of-interest. Editors please review basic Wikipedia editing guidelines.
Piano non troppo ( talk) 04:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
-- Gary Bradski ( talk) 01:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)There are still spurious claims with this article. First of all, it touts a mysterious algorithm that is somehow animal like. A brief over view. Second of all, the claims against AI are either spurious or just wrong (comments in bold to an offending paragraph):
Efforts to apply Machine intelligence to industry, have met with only limited success Rather, there are limited but notable successes such as airline scheduling, automated inspection on up to Google. The problem stemmed from the belief that if enough facts where loaded into a sophisticated data base, a machine would become intelligent (i.e. the Artificial Intelligence approach).[5] You found a newspaper quote perhaps, but classic AI hoped that if you created enough rules, not facts that intelligence would emerge. Machine learning etc hopes that if you put in enough facts or Data that intelligence will emerge. This has limits, but things like Google are fairly intelligent in their domain. Since this approach was not working Working for what?? Certainly people in Google are making tons of money, your shampoo bottle rarely has a defective label due to this approach and robots in the Darpa grand challenges have driven miles across a desert and navigated traffic in situations that would fluster many humans. You can argue for a more flexible, scalable approach, but as worded this is just not true., a number of roboticists[who?] in academia came to believe that a machine could exhibit intelligent behavior only through physically manipulating the world and, through its own sensors, learn the immediate effects of its actions.[citation needed]You could cite, for example any of the reinforcement literature, or perhaps Q-learning Intelligence would emerge as the machine developed skills through its interactions with people and the world.[6] Brooks is a great guy and all, but reinforcement learning predates him. You might as well also cite his Heartland robotics company too since they are in the same space.
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Editor on this article, 69.247.131.76 has a reserve lookup of
Comcast Cable Communications, Inc. NASHVILLE-21 (NET-69-247-128-0-1) 69.247.128.0 - 69.247.159.255
Which would seem to indicate that they come from the same city as this companies HQ, given the nature of the edits by that user, I beleieve there is a high probability that there is a conflict of interest here, tagging the article as such 82.32.73.70 ( talk) 11:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Clearly you are an expert in these matters. Your insight will be valuable. We will stick with the facts, and watch the use of slogans. We'll review the WP:PCK and make adjustments. Can you contact me at 0222@usa.net for further discussion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.131.76 ( talk) 15:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
This is written like an advertisement, tag replaced. Several other tags are also appropriate, including probably conflict-of-interest. Editors please review basic Wikipedia editing guidelines.
Piano non troppo ( talk) 04:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
-- Gary Bradski ( talk) 01:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)There are still spurious claims with this article. First of all, it touts a mysterious algorithm that is somehow animal like. A brief over view. Second of all, the claims against AI are either spurious or just wrong (comments in bold to an offending paragraph):
Efforts to apply Machine intelligence to industry, have met with only limited success Rather, there are limited but notable successes such as airline scheduling, automated inspection on up to Google. The problem stemmed from the belief that if enough facts where loaded into a sophisticated data base, a machine would become intelligent (i.e. the Artificial Intelligence approach).[5] You found a newspaper quote perhaps, but classic AI hoped that if you created enough rules, not facts that intelligence would emerge. Machine learning etc hopes that if you put in enough facts or Data that intelligence will emerge. This has limits, but things like Google are fairly intelligent in their domain. Since this approach was not working Working for what?? Certainly people in Google are making tons of money, your shampoo bottle rarely has a defective label due to this approach and robots in the Darpa grand challenges have driven miles across a desert and navigated traffic in situations that would fluster many humans. You can argue for a more flexible, scalable approach, but as worded this is just not true., a number of roboticists[who?] in academia came to believe that a machine could exhibit intelligent behavior only through physically manipulating the world and, through its own sensors, learn the immediate effects of its actions.[citation needed]You could cite, for example any of the reinforcement literature, or perhaps Q-learning Intelligence would emerge as the machine developed skills through its interactions with people and the world.[6] Brooks is a great guy and all, but reinforcement learning predates him. You might as well also cite his Heartland robotics company too since they are in the same space.