AI has been solved

formatting link
tells the story :-)
Reply to
Arthur T. Murray
Loading thread data ...
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?
Reply to
Insane Ranter
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.
Reply to
nettron2000
Just don't ask the robot. You'll upset him. JJ
Reply to
John Jones
Some of our species it seems are more primitive than others in that area...
Reply to
Insane Ranter
And calling her him will do the same.. ;)
Reply to
Insane Ranter
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.
Reply to
Kent Paul Dolan
I thought the 'classic' test of intelligence was the Turin test.
Reply to
Geoffrey Swales
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
Reply to
Steven Frankel
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"!
Reply to
Airy R Bean
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
Reply to
Insane Ranter
No, that's the Shroud of Turin. It's the Turing Test you're thinking of, after Alan Turing. -Steve
Reply to
R. Steve Walz
---------------- 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
Reply to
R. Steve Walz
Grow up, OM.
Reply to
Airy R Bean
----------------- Eat shit and die, meaningless spammer! You said nothing, you shit! -Steve
Reply to
R. Steve Walz
Grow up, OM.
Reply to
Airy R Bean
-------------- Eat your shit and die, spamming scum! -Steve
Reply to
R. Steve Walz
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.
Reply to
Airy R Bean
Thank you for explaining that to me; I always wondered how they judged intelligence using a table cloth with tea stains on it!
Reply to
Geoffrey Swales
In article , Geoffrey Swales writes
I guess you have to be European to understand the test by fiat joke.
Reply to
David Longley

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.