This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Recently there have been signicant changes to the expert systems article. I wonder if others would care to give their opinion. pgr94 ( talk) 18:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Logic section presently has sentence beginning The study of logic led directly to the invention of, which is flat wrong. The study of logic had to detour through George Boole and An Investigation of the Laws of Thought (1854), on Which are Founded the Mathematical Theories of Logic and Probabilities, before 0 + 1 could equal anything but 1, and before there were any useful means of analyzing artificial thought or artificial intelligence. The omission is illogical. He should certainly get prominent mention, and editors might even consider honorable mention of a Logic Named Joe.-- Pawyilee ( talk) 05:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I have fixed some cites which were not linking to the citations/works/books to which they were apparantly meant to link [3]. I have also deleted two cites because there seemed to be no cited book (in the article) to which they could be linked. I would request that some regular editors to this article may review my edits. Thanks. MW ℳ 16:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I would like two edits in particular to be reviewed. In those edits, I had deleted citations. This could mean that some of the material in the article is now unsupported by proper citations.
If we have no citations to support what Vernor Vinge and Roger Penrose are being made to say in the article, we may need to delete the points attributed to them. That is why I suggested that my edits be reviewed. Thanks. MW ℳ 13:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Besides these two cites, I had also deleted one citation to Picard. I think that should be OK. MW ℳ 13:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian ( talk) 10:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Artificial intelligence → Artificial Intelligence – Better match the title naming convention (capitalization) Varagrawal ( talk) 10:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC) (orig. time stamp: 21:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC))
I would only like to know the Market Study, the Specialized Article or any Serious Source for the Affirmation "By 1985 the market for AI had reached over a billion dollars", because I have been searching for It since Long Time Ago and cannot find Anything. AFGV 03 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.135.62.175 ( talk)
The intro is good. It presents all that is needed for a definition proper. However, I would prefer swapping paragraph 2 and 3, since para 3 explains details, and para 2 speculates about consequences. Maybe some formulation trimming too, to make the language fluent. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 06:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I noticed a poorly spelled insult to wikipedia at the top of the "history" subsection of the mobile version of this article, that is not present in the standard version, I am uncertain of how to edit the mobile version, and so decided I should simply point out the infraction, with the hopes that someone would know how to fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.65.160 ( talk) 17:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The history of Talk:Synthetic intelligence shows that this article has been contentious for quite some time. I'm adding a RfC tag in front of the latest merge discussion in the hopes that a wider participation will get us out of the "no consensus" zone one way or the other. Tijfo098 ( talk) 07:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I am proposing to merge the Synthetic intelligence article into this one. The reason is -as stated in the SI article- "(SI) is an alternative term for artificial intelligence which emphasizes that the intelligence of machines need not be an imitation or any way artificial";
The SI article is quite small and we can even select the most relevant information to be merged. Cheers, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 14:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Since this has been tried and failed, it looks like this merge failed again. At current times, I say Darker Dreams has option to cancel. So, your decision, Darker Dreams? Mysterytrey talk 19:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an example of Synthetic Intelligence. It is not artificial intelligence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.31.208 ( talk) 08:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Found an interesting article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19748209 Could be useful here or on a page directly related. 212.250.138.33 ( talk) 20:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
The last four paragraphs of the history section are, at best, unsourced and unencyclopedic. Some of their content is just false. For example, the line: "No one would any longer consider already-solved computing science problems like OCR "artificial intelligence" today." A quick skim of the article on OCR reveals it is indeed a "field of research in" AI and that it is certainly not considered "solved." I've sprinkled those paragraphs with citation needed and will remove them soon if they're not fixed. I would remove them now but they appear to have been there for a while so I'll wait a bit longer. ColinClark ( talk) 02:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
This summary sentence could be worded better, I think, for NLP bots and humans alike:
The central problems of AI include such traits as reasoning, knowledge, planning, learning, communication, perception and the ability to move and manipulate objects. [1]
Traits or goals of an AI system don't seem like "problems" to me. They are a challenge to implement, or broad categories of qualities to be improved, or the themes of problem sets being researched. Is there a way to say this more precisely and with less academic jargon, while maintaining the citation? Hobsonlane ( talk) 12:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
'Strong AI' seems to be used ambiguously for a number of different theses or programs, from reductionism about mind to the computational theory of mind to reductionism about semantics or consciousness (discussed in Chinese room) to the creation of machines exhibiting generally intelligent behavior. The last of these options is the topic of the article we're currently calling ' Strong AI'. I've proposed a rename to Artificial general intelligence at the Talk page. What do you all think? - Silence ( talk) 23:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Is L.M. Augusto's Unconscious representations [in AI > References > Notes > #55] appropriate/valid/etc. ?
I couldn't find this mentioned/discussed earlier, although
Talk:Artificial_intelligence/Archive_5#Expert_systems:_eyes_please...
The
(2) paper(s) in question are easy to find. However, since I don't feel competent in evaluating them, I tried [unsuccessfully] to find other opinions.
WikiBlame was helpful in eventually identifying 4 May 2013 as
1st appearance in this AI Wikipedia article.
Not to be
slanderous, but, seeing
only 4 (seemingly targeted) edits got me wondering...
So, after
learning a little, am I perhaps being too cynical/suspicious in suspecting this as a clever means towards
tenure?
[How] Does the quality of the research/papers bear on it's inclusion in Wikipedia? (less
picky for "Notes"??)
Additional brain dumps:
Educational
flames, especially like/using [the blocked by Wikipedia] "LMGTFY.com" are welcome. ;-)
Thanks.
Curious1i ( talk) 00:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
This IP seems to be trying to add plugs to recent articles, by adding a paragraph on semantic comprehension with reference to Deep Blue vs. Kasparov, or by adding links in the body of the article without plain text. This isn't really appropriate at this level of article - AI is meant for a general overview, and not to promote one of the many thousands of attempts to define intelligence. Leondz ( talk) 11:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Under section "Predictions and Ethics" is the following:
This information is about robotic art and does not apply to "Predictions and Ethics", and should be relocated to an appropriate article or deleted.
In the same paragraph occurs the following information:
This information is about robotic history, and does not apply to "Predictions and Ethics". Advise relocate or delete. Belnova ( talk) 06:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I think a high level listing of AI's goals (from which more specific Problems inherit) is needed; for instance "AI attempts to achieve one or more of: 1) mimicking living structure and/or internal processes, 2) replacing living thing's external function, using a different internal implementation, 3) ..." At one point in the past, I had 3 or 4 such disjoint goals stated to me by someone expert in AI. I am not, however. DouglasHeld ( talk) 00:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I object to the phrase "human-like intelligence" being substituted here and elsewhere for "intelligence". This is too narrow and is out of step with the way many leaders of AI describe their own work. This only describes the work of a small minority of AI researchers.
AI research is primarily concerned with solving real-world problems, problems that require intelligence when they are solved by people. AI research, for the most part, does not seek to simulate "human like" intelligence, unless it helps to solve this fundamental goal. Although some AI researchers have studied human psychology or human neurology in their search for better algorithms, this is the exception rather than the rule.
I find it difficult to understand why we want to emphasize "human-like" intelligence. As opposed to what? "Animal-like" intelligence? "Machine-like" intelligence? "God-like" intelligence? I'm not really sure what this editor is getting at.
I will continue to revert the insertion "human-like" wherever I see it. ---- CharlesGillingham ( talk) 06:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
One more thing: the phrase "human-like" is an awkward neologism. Even if the text was written correctly, it would still read poorly. ---- CharlesGillingham ( talk) 06:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
As the outline of this article plainly shows in its opening eight sections, each one of the eight sections of this page are all explicitly for 'human-like' intelligence. This fact should be reflected in the Lede as well. The first eight section are all devoted to human-like intelligence. In the last few weeks you have taken several differing positions. First you were saying that there is nothing other than human-like intelligence, then you wished to introduce multiple references to support the opposite, and now you appear to wish to defend an explicitly strong-AI version of your views against 'human-like' intelligence. You are expected on the basis of good faith to make you best arguments up front. The opening eight sections are all devoted to human-like intelligence, even to the explicit numbering of natural language communication into the list. There is no difficulty if you wish to write your own new page for "Strong-AI" and only Strong-AI. If you like, you can even ignore the normative AI perspective on your version of a page titled "Strong-AI". That however is not the position which is represented on the general AI page which is predominantly in its first eight sections oriented to human-like intelligence. FelixRosch ( talk) 16:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
All I'm saying is this: major AI researchers would (and do) object to defining AI as specifically and exclusively studying
"human-like" intelligence. They would prefer to define the field as studying intelligence in general, whether human or not. I have provided ample citations and quotations prove that this is the case. If you can't see that I have proved this point, then we are talking past each other. Repeatedly trying to add "human" or "human-like" or "human-ish" intelligence to the definition is simply incorrect.
I am happy to get WP:Arbitration on this matter, if you like, as long as it is understood that I only check Wikipedia once a week or so.
Re: many of the sections which define the problem refer to humans. This does not contradict what I am saying and does not suggest that Wikipedia should try to redefine the field in terms of human intelligence. Humans are the best example of intelligent behavior, so it is natural that we should use humans as an example when we are describing the problems that AI is solving. There are technical definitions of these problems that do not refer to humans: we can define reasoning in terms of logic, problem solving in terms of abstract rational agents, machine learning in terms of self-improving programs and so on. Once we have defined the task precisely and written a program that performs it to any degree, we're no longer talking about human intelligence any more -- we're talking about intelligence in general and machine intelligence in particular (which can be very "inhuman", as I demonstrated in an earlier post).
Re: strong AI. Yes, strong AI (in either sense) is defined in terms of human intelligence or consciousness. However, I am arguing that major AI researchers would prefer not to use "human" intelligence as the definition of the field, a position which points in the opposite direction from strong AI; the people I am arguing on behalf of are generally uninterested in strong AI (as Russell and Norvig write "most AI researchers don't care about the strong AI hypothesis"). So it was weird that you wrote I was "devoted to the Strong-AI position". Naturally, I wondered what on earth you were talking about.
The term "weak AI" is not generally used except in contrast to "strong AI", but if we must use it, I think you could characterize my argument as defending "weak AI"'s claim to be part of AI. In fact, "strong AI research" (known as artificial general intelligence) is a very small field indeed, and "weak AI" (if we must call it that) constitutes the vast majority of research, with thousands of successful applications and tens of thousands of researchers. ---- CharlesGillingham ( talk) 00:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
From the lede: | Major AI researchers and textbooks define this field as "the study and design of intelligent agents" |
---|---|
First footnote: | Definition of AI as the study of
intelligent agents:
|
Comment: | Note that an intelligent agent or rational agent is (quite deliberately) not just a human being. It's more general: it can be a machine as simple a thermostat or as complex as a firm or nation. |
From the section Approaches: |
A few of the most long standing questions that have remained unanswered are these: should artificial intelligence simulate natural intelligence by studying psychology or neurology? Or is human biology as irrelevant to AI research as bird biology is to aeronautical engineering? |
From the corresponding footnote |
Biological intelligence vs. intelligence in general:
|
Comment | All of these sources (and others; Rodney Brook's Elephants Don't Play Chess paper should also be cited) are part of a debate within the field that lasted from the 1960s to 90s, and was mostly settled by the "intelligent agent" paradigm. The exceptions would be the relatively small (but extremely interesting) field of artificial general intelligence research. This field defines itself in terms human intelligence. The field of AI, as a whole, does not. |
Why is anyone suggesting that arbitration might be in order? Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution, and is used when user conduct issues make it impossible to resolve a content dispute. There appear to be content issues here, such as whether the term "human-like" should be used, but I don't see any evidence of conduct issues. That is, it appears that the editors here are being civil and are not engaged in disruptive editing. I do see that a thread has been opened at the dispute resolution noticeboard, an appropriate step in resolving content issues. If you haven't tried everything else, you don't want arbitration. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
In looking over the recent discussion, it appears that the basic question is what should be in the article lede paragraph. Can each of the editors with different ideas provide a draft for the lede? If the issue is indeed over what should be in the lede, then perhaps a content Request for Comments might be an alternative to formal dispute resolution. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Artificial intelligence (AI) is the intelligence exhibited by machines or software. It is also an academic field of study. Major AI researchers and textbooks define this field as "the study and design of intelligent agents",[1] where an intelligent agent is a system that perceives its environment and takes actions that maximize its chances of success.[2] John McCarthy, who coined the term in 1955,[3] defines it as "the science and engineering of making intelligent machines".[4]
---- CharlesGillingham ( talk) 19:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Based on a comment posted by User:FelixRosch at my talk page, it appears that the main issue is whether the first sentence of the lede should include "human-like". If that is the issue of disagreement, then the Request for Comments process is appropriate. The RFC process runs for 30 days unless there is clear consensus in less time. Formal dispute resolution can take a while also. Is the main issue the word "human-like"? Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Recently there have been signicant changes to the expert systems article. I wonder if others would care to give their opinion. pgr94 ( talk) 18:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Logic section presently has sentence beginning The study of logic led directly to the invention of, which is flat wrong. The study of logic had to detour through George Boole and An Investigation of the Laws of Thought (1854), on Which are Founded the Mathematical Theories of Logic and Probabilities, before 0 + 1 could equal anything but 1, and before there were any useful means of analyzing artificial thought or artificial intelligence. The omission is illogical. He should certainly get prominent mention, and editors might even consider honorable mention of a Logic Named Joe.-- Pawyilee ( talk) 05:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I have fixed some cites which were not linking to the citations/works/books to which they were apparantly meant to link [3]. I have also deleted two cites because there seemed to be no cited book (in the article) to which they could be linked. I would request that some regular editors to this article may review my edits. Thanks. MW ℳ 16:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I would like two edits in particular to be reviewed. In those edits, I had deleted citations. This could mean that some of the material in the article is now unsupported by proper citations.
If we have no citations to support what Vernor Vinge and Roger Penrose are being made to say in the article, we may need to delete the points attributed to them. That is why I suggested that my edits be reviewed. Thanks. MW ℳ 13:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Besides these two cites, I had also deleted one citation to Picard. I think that should be OK. MW ℳ 13:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian ( talk) 10:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Artificial intelligence → Artificial Intelligence – Better match the title naming convention (capitalization) Varagrawal ( talk) 10:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC) (orig. time stamp: 21:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC))
I would only like to know the Market Study, the Specialized Article or any Serious Source for the Affirmation "By 1985 the market for AI had reached over a billion dollars", because I have been searching for It since Long Time Ago and cannot find Anything. AFGV 03 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.135.62.175 ( talk)
The intro is good. It presents all that is needed for a definition proper. However, I would prefer swapping paragraph 2 and 3, since para 3 explains details, and para 2 speculates about consequences. Maybe some formulation trimming too, to make the language fluent. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 06:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I noticed a poorly spelled insult to wikipedia at the top of the "history" subsection of the mobile version of this article, that is not present in the standard version, I am uncertain of how to edit the mobile version, and so decided I should simply point out the infraction, with the hopes that someone would know how to fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.65.160 ( talk) 17:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The history of Talk:Synthetic intelligence shows that this article has been contentious for quite some time. I'm adding a RfC tag in front of the latest merge discussion in the hopes that a wider participation will get us out of the "no consensus" zone one way or the other. Tijfo098 ( talk) 07:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I am proposing to merge the Synthetic intelligence article into this one. The reason is -as stated in the SI article- "(SI) is an alternative term for artificial intelligence which emphasizes that the intelligence of machines need not be an imitation or any way artificial";
The SI article is quite small and we can even select the most relevant information to be merged. Cheers, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 14:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Since this has been tried and failed, it looks like this merge failed again. At current times, I say Darker Dreams has option to cancel. So, your decision, Darker Dreams? Mysterytrey talk 19:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an example of Synthetic Intelligence. It is not artificial intelligence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.31.208 ( talk) 08:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Found an interesting article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19748209 Could be useful here or on a page directly related. 212.250.138.33 ( talk) 20:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
The last four paragraphs of the history section are, at best, unsourced and unencyclopedic. Some of their content is just false. For example, the line: "No one would any longer consider already-solved computing science problems like OCR "artificial intelligence" today." A quick skim of the article on OCR reveals it is indeed a "field of research in" AI and that it is certainly not considered "solved." I've sprinkled those paragraphs with citation needed and will remove them soon if they're not fixed. I would remove them now but they appear to have been there for a while so I'll wait a bit longer. ColinClark ( talk) 02:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
This summary sentence could be worded better, I think, for NLP bots and humans alike:
The central problems of AI include such traits as reasoning, knowledge, planning, learning, communication, perception and the ability to move and manipulate objects. [1]
Traits or goals of an AI system don't seem like "problems" to me. They are a challenge to implement, or broad categories of qualities to be improved, or the themes of problem sets being researched. Is there a way to say this more precisely and with less academic jargon, while maintaining the citation? Hobsonlane ( talk) 12:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
'Strong AI' seems to be used ambiguously for a number of different theses or programs, from reductionism about mind to the computational theory of mind to reductionism about semantics or consciousness (discussed in Chinese room) to the creation of machines exhibiting generally intelligent behavior. The last of these options is the topic of the article we're currently calling ' Strong AI'. I've proposed a rename to Artificial general intelligence at the Talk page. What do you all think? - Silence ( talk) 23:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Is L.M. Augusto's Unconscious representations [in AI > References > Notes > #55] appropriate/valid/etc. ?
I couldn't find this mentioned/discussed earlier, although
Talk:Artificial_intelligence/Archive_5#Expert_systems:_eyes_please...
The
(2) paper(s) in question are easy to find. However, since I don't feel competent in evaluating them, I tried [unsuccessfully] to find other opinions.
WikiBlame was helpful in eventually identifying 4 May 2013 as
1st appearance in this AI Wikipedia article.
Not to be
slanderous, but, seeing
only 4 (seemingly targeted) edits got me wondering...
So, after
learning a little, am I perhaps being too cynical/suspicious in suspecting this as a clever means towards
tenure?
[How] Does the quality of the research/papers bear on it's inclusion in Wikipedia? (less
picky for "Notes"??)
Additional brain dumps:
Educational
flames, especially like/using [the blocked by Wikipedia] "LMGTFY.com" are welcome. ;-)
Thanks.
Curious1i ( talk) 00:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
This IP seems to be trying to add plugs to recent articles, by adding a paragraph on semantic comprehension with reference to Deep Blue vs. Kasparov, or by adding links in the body of the article without plain text. This isn't really appropriate at this level of article - AI is meant for a general overview, and not to promote one of the many thousands of attempts to define intelligence. Leondz ( talk) 11:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Under section "Predictions and Ethics" is the following:
This information is about robotic art and does not apply to "Predictions and Ethics", and should be relocated to an appropriate article or deleted.
In the same paragraph occurs the following information:
This information is about robotic history, and does not apply to "Predictions and Ethics". Advise relocate or delete. Belnova ( talk) 06:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I think a high level listing of AI's goals (from which more specific Problems inherit) is needed; for instance "AI attempts to achieve one or more of: 1) mimicking living structure and/or internal processes, 2) replacing living thing's external function, using a different internal implementation, 3) ..." At one point in the past, I had 3 or 4 such disjoint goals stated to me by someone expert in AI. I am not, however. DouglasHeld ( talk) 00:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I object to the phrase "human-like intelligence" being substituted here and elsewhere for "intelligence". This is too narrow and is out of step with the way many leaders of AI describe their own work. This only describes the work of a small minority of AI researchers.
AI research is primarily concerned with solving real-world problems, problems that require intelligence when they are solved by people. AI research, for the most part, does not seek to simulate "human like" intelligence, unless it helps to solve this fundamental goal. Although some AI researchers have studied human psychology or human neurology in their search for better algorithms, this is the exception rather than the rule.
I find it difficult to understand why we want to emphasize "human-like" intelligence. As opposed to what? "Animal-like" intelligence? "Machine-like" intelligence? "God-like" intelligence? I'm not really sure what this editor is getting at.
I will continue to revert the insertion "human-like" wherever I see it. ---- CharlesGillingham ( talk) 06:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
One more thing: the phrase "human-like" is an awkward neologism. Even if the text was written correctly, it would still read poorly. ---- CharlesGillingham ( talk) 06:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
As the outline of this article plainly shows in its opening eight sections, each one of the eight sections of this page are all explicitly for 'human-like' intelligence. This fact should be reflected in the Lede as well. The first eight section are all devoted to human-like intelligence. In the last few weeks you have taken several differing positions. First you were saying that there is nothing other than human-like intelligence, then you wished to introduce multiple references to support the opposite, and now you appear to wish to defend an explicitly strong-AI version of your views against 'human-like' intelligence. You are expected on the basis of good faith to make you best arguments up front. The opening eight sections are all devoted to human-like intelligence, even to the explicit numbering of natural language communication into the list. There is no difficulty if you wish to write your own new page for "Strong-AI" and only Strong-AI. If you like, you can even ignore the normative AI perspective on your version of a page titled "Strong-AI". That however is not the position which is represented on the general AI page which is predominantly in its first eight sections oriented to human-like intelligence. FelixRosch ( talk) 16:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
All I'm saying is this: major AI researchers would (and do) object to defining AI as specifically and exclusively studying
"human-like" intelligence. They would prefer to define the field as studying intelligence in general, whether human or not. I have provided ample citations and quotations prove that this is the case. If you can't see that I have proved this point, then we are talking past each other. Repeatedly trying to add "human" or "human-like" or "human-ish" intelligence to the definition is simply incorrect.
I am happy to get WP:Arbitration on this matter, if you like, as long as it is understood that I only check Wikipedia once a week or so.
Re: many of the sections which define the problem refer to humans. This does not contradict what I am saying and does not suggest that Wikipedia should try to redefine the field in terms of human intelligence. Humans are the best example of intelligent behavior, so it is natural that we should use humans as an example when we are describing the problems that AI is solving. There are technical definitions of these problems that do not refer to humans: we can define reasoning in terms of logic, problem solving in terms of abstract rational agents, machine learning in terms of self-improving programs and so on. Once we have defined the task precisely and written a program that performs it to any degree, we're no longer talking about human intelligence any more -- we're talking about intelligence in general and machine intelligence in particular (which can be very "inhuman", as I demonstrated in an earlier post).
Re: strong AI. Yes, strong AI (in either sense) is defined in terms of human intelligence or consciousness. However, I am arguing that major AI researchers would prefer not to use "human" intelligence as the definition of the field, a position which points in the opposite direction from strong AI; the people I am arguing on behalf of are generally uninterested in strong AI (as Russell and Norvig write "most AI researchers don't care about the strong AI hypothesis"). So it was weird that you wrote I was "devoted to the Strong-AI position". Naturally, I wondered what on earth you were talking about.
The term "weak AI" is not generally used except in contrast to "strong AI", but if we must use it, I think you could characterize my argument as defending "weak AI"'s claim to be part of AI. In fact, "strong AI research" (known as artificial general intelligence) is a very small field indeed, and "weak AI" (if we must call it that) constitutes the vast majority of research, with thousands of successful applications and tens of thousands of researchers. ---- CharlesGillingham ( talk) 00:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
From the lede: | Major AI researchers and textbooks define this field as "the study and design of intelligent agents" |
---|---|
First footnote: | Definition of AI as the study of
intelligent agents:
|
Comment: | Note that an intelligent agent or rational agent is (quite deliberately) not just a human being. It's more general: it can be a machine as simple a thermostat or as complex as a firm or nation. |
From the section Approaches: |
A few of the most long standing questions that have remained unanswered are these: should artificial intelligence simulate natural intelligence by studying psychology or neurology? Or is human biology as irrelevant to AI research as bird biology is to aeronautical engineering? |
From the corresponding footnote |
Biological intelligence vs. intelligence in general:
|
Comment | All of these sources (and others; Rodney Brook's Elephants Don't Play Chess paper should also be cited) are part of a debate within the field that lasted from the 1960s to 90s, and was mostly settled by the "intelligent agent" paradigm. The exceptions would be the relatively small (but extremely interesting) field of artificial general intelligence research. This field defines itself in terms human intelligence. The field of AI, as a whole, does not. |
Why is anyone suggesting that arbitration might be in order? Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution, and is used when user conduct issues make it impossible to resolve a content dispute. There appear to be content issues here, such as whether the term "human-like" should be used, but I don't see any evidence of conduct issues. That is, it appears that the editors here are being civil and are not engaged in disruptive editing. I do see that a thread has been opened at the dispute resolution noticeboard, an appropriate step in resolving content issues. If you haven't tried everything else, you don't want arbitration. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
In looking over the recent discussion, it appears that the basic question is what should be in the article lede paragraph. Can each of the editors with different ideas provide a draft for the lede? If the issue is indeed over what should be in the lede, then perhaps a content Request for Comments might be an alternative to formal dispute resolution. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Artificial intelligence (AI) is the intelligence exhibited by machines or software. It is also an academic field of study. Major AI researchers and textbooks define this field as "the study and design of intelligent agents",[1] where an intelligent agent is a system that perceives its environment and takes actions that maximize its chances of success.[2] John McCarthy, who coined the term in 1955,[3] defines it as "the science and engineering of making intelligent machines".[4]
---- CharlesGillingham ( talk) 19:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Based on a comment posted by User:FelixRosch at my talk page, it appears that the main issue is whether the first sentence of the lede should include "human-like". If that is the issue of disagreement, then the Request for Comments process is appropriate. The RFC process runs for 30 days unless there is clear consensus in less time. Formal dispute resolution can take a while also. Is the main issue the word "human-like"? Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)