AI has been solved

What level of intelligence is AI determined to be sovled?

If I build a robot that moves simply between light and dark.....if has the intelligence of some sort....is it considered AI?

I often wondered about that myself. Although our definition of "intelligence" hasnt bin fully explained, i believe robots have a primitive form of intelligence. But then is our intelligence primitive too?

Net.

Just don't ask the robot. You'll upset him. JJ

Some of our species it seems are more primitive than others in that area...

And calling her him will do the same.. ;)

Never mind.

Mr. Murray is one of the Net's better known victims of an obsession that some hobbyhorse of his constitutes wonderful scientific breakthroughs; compare James Harris who has plagued sci.math for even longer. Of the two, Murray seems the saner. Sadly, though, Murray managed to gull some publisher with a weak-minded editorial staff into publishing his mindrot as a non-fiction book recently, but it doesn't make any more sense for being professionally typeset.

Murray wanders by flogging his stuff at every opportunity; I'm sure he inhabits many killfiles, as he has no other subject of conversation.

xanthian.

I thought the 'classic' test of intelligence was the Turin test.

That it is, although it's not a very good indication. There were some programs developed that could do a fairly convincing imitation of a human conversation that were clearly nonintelligent. Besides, in my opinion, the ability to speak does not constitute intelligence. Primates cannot speak but many are accorded some level of intelligence. In any case, I believe that any attempt to construct a definite set of requirements that constitute intelligence is worthless. Any such construct would in essence simply be formulated to include anything that we believe intelligent and exclude anything else. It has a similar validity of many common definitions of life (uses water, grows, etc.). Could we not think of something that we would consider alive that does not follow those rules? Either way, the only way I can think of to discern if something is intelligent (or alive, for that matter), is, "You'll know it when you see it." And even that may not be true.

Steve "Geoffrey Swales" wrote in message news:bfpstu$5eu$1$ snipped-for-privacy@news.beeb.net...

The SNAVE definition of intelligence.

-------------------------------------

Intelligence is the ability to recognise comparable qualities.

It is not memory, although memory of the newly-discovered comparisons will assist in future intelligent excursions.

It is not thought; that is the disturbance-stimulated motivation that drives intelligence in the first place..

It is not self-awareness, although self-awareness arises from intelligence.

It is not speech.

-----ooooo-----

The SNAVE test replaces the Turing Test.

Once you specify what it is that represents knowledge in your computer program, and can identify (Correctly!) how that representation has derived directly from what is being taught, then and only then are you able to demonstrate machine intelligence for you will be able to demonstrate how new representations have arrived that can only have come from intelligence excursions of your machine.

Beware! If you show your machine 3 apples and then show it

3 Russians, the new representations that appear will not necessarily be cognisance of "3"; they might well be cognisance of, "Red"!

So a robot that can say this area is dark and this area is light is intelligent then....much like many insects and "lower" animals....

And thinking that intellience is the same as sentience is flawed then?

So we more or less let the machine place it's own meaning on words then? In orderwords make it's own language

No, that's the Shroud of Turin. It's the Turing Test you're thinking of, after Alan Turing.

-Steve

---------------- That sounds like nonsense. Intelligence is awareness, the ability to self-model one's own life in the mind in memory and to analyze what-if's for the future.

To pretend that something can be intelligent as a human is without being conscious by means of memory of past events is moronic. To think you exist you have to think that you are "this and that", facts about you, namely, remembered information.

Anything less than awareness and you can call intelligence ANY reaction to a stimulous, as that complexity is a smooth continiuum.

-Steve

Grow up, OM.

----------------- Eat shit and die, meaningless spammer! You said nothing, you shit!

-Steve

-------------- Eat your shit and die, spamming scum!

-Steve

Discoveries in the field of artificial intelligence, of very relevance to this NG, will not come about through displays of infantility that are best left behind in the school playground. Are you still there; if so, I can understand your outbursts? YOU don't have the answers and therefore you make a fool of yourself if you respond to other's theories in the way that you did.

Grow up, OM.

In article , Geoffrey Swales writes

I guess you have to be European to understand the test by fiat joke.