Talk:Artificial intelligence

Active discussions
August 6, 2009Peer reviewReviewed


A little light reliefEdit

We're all doomed! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-30290540

“intelligence demonstrated by machines”Edit

No, simply NO!

Artificial intelligence may be be instantiated as machines, in the future, but it has never been demonstrated at all. The only thing that has been demonstrated is smartness in strongly confined areas, it is nothing close to general intelligence. It also may be instantiated as machines, but it may also be instantiated as wet artificial life, and that would not imply a machine at all.

I tried to link to this article, started to read it, and then found out it is simply not good enough. It is so full of errors… Jeblad (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jeblad: The article's lead section doesn't claim that artificial general intelligence has been demonstrated, though it describes other forms of "weak" or "narrow" AI that already have been demonstrated. Where are the errors in this article? Jarble (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
First sentence in the article; Artificial intelligence (AI), sometimes called machine intelligence, is intelligence demonstrated by machines, unlike the natural intelligence displayed by humans and animals. The sentence is simply false, we are not even close to demonstrate intelligence by machines.
On weak AI (check Searle's definition); we are not even at the point where we can test hypothesis about the mind, we are testing hypothesis about functional machine learning, which is something very different. If we were to test hypothesis about the mind, then we must start to grasp how the mind actually work. We are not there at all.
It starts to be quite a number of people that use the phrase “machine intelligence” about various smart machines, to not confuse it with real artificial intelligence. It is a kind of counter-movement to the massive marketing hype that everything with a bit of “smartness” is an AI product. No, your lawn mover is not some kind of AI gadget even if it manages to avoid the flowers! Jeblad (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I think that the answer comes from a much more mundane level. This article is about artificial intelligence by the normal meanings of the term. The arguments expressed in your post are for another meaning of the term and I think would be a good addition to the article as such if sourced. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
The article tries to articulate the marketing hype about “artificial intelligence”, which is (sorry to say) plain bullshit. Marketing hype is not, and will never be, defining the normal use of words. This is what a lot of people call “machine intelligence”, but it should probably just be called “smart machines”. It is machines that cut your lawn and avoid your flower. They have no idea why they shouldn't cut your flowers, or any ability to reason why it is so, they just obey a random constraint.
Too many users at Wikipedia are writing about things they have little knowledge about, but manages to drive away those that has real knowledge. This article, as many articles at Wikipedia, tries to describe a term or phrase, but ends up obfuscating the real meaning, and it is impossible to correct the mess. Jeblad (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
There is a whole range of definitions that exist between the one that you mentioned (which is so rigorous that it says that AI doesn't exist) and the other extreme which is overuse of the term especially in marketing and intellectual-incest-"journalism". For example an "in between" one(from Google): "the theory and development of computer systems able to perform tasks that normally require human intelligence, such as visual perception, speech recognition, decision-making, and translation between languages." North8000 (talk) 14:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
There are a whole range of definitions that are simply false. Listing every technique ever to tangent on some subject will not make the article right, it will just be a very visual mark of yet another overly broad article of gobbledygook.
A few pretty good definitions
  • Merriam-Webster dictionary: AI is a branch of computer science dealing with the simulation of intelligent behavior in computers.
  • Russel and Norvig, among others: AI is a subfield of computer science aimed at specifying and making computer systems that mimic human intelligence or express rational behaviour, in the sense that the task would require intelligence if executed by a human.
  • The Cambridge Handbook of Artificial Intelligence: The attempt to make computers do the sort of things human and animal minds can do – either for technological purposes and/or to improve our theoretical understanding of psychological phenomena.
And a definition that is somewhat off…
  • English Oxford Living Dictionary, it appears in several of their publications: The theory and development of computer systems able to perform tasks normally requiring human intelligence, such as visual perception, speech recognition, decision-making, and translation between languages.
A comment on the last from an assignment at University of Oslo: I think this definition is a bit misleading in that it defines “visual perception” and “decision-making” as requiring human intelligence. These are tasks that some animals can perform, and while I might understand the intention of the definition is not to separate these abilities between human and animal intelligence, it makes it seem like these would require some “generally intelligent” intelligence, while artificial narrow intelligence can complete these tasks even better than some humans. – Kathinka O. Aspvin
I found the reply to be quite on the point! Jeblad (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
This reinforces what I said in that that are a lot of viable definitions. North8000 (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Announcement of reference removalEdit

In the chapter “Basics”, an arxiv paper was referenced "Goodfellow, Ian J.; Shlens, Jonathon; Szegedy, Christian (2014). Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examples.". The paper was presented at a highly specialized conference ICLR with a low amount of public visibility. The amount of people, who have read the paper or will in the future is low. If no counter arguments are provided, i will delete the reference from the article in the near future. This will provide more space for the remaining references.--ManuelRodriguez (talk) 09:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good. IMO references should be there to clearly support the cited statement and/or be really useful for the typical readers. Articles hot technical like this tend to be full of reference spamming which serves neither of those purposes. North8000 (talk) 13:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

"Artificial intelligence tools for computer science"Edit

This article was recently split from Artificial intelligence, but it doesn't seem to have a coherent topic: it describes tools and approaches from computer science that are used to solve problems in artificial intelligence, instead of tools from artificial intelligence that are being used to solve open problems in computer science. Should these two articles be merged again? Jarble (talk) 14:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment. I split the Artificial intelligence tools for computer science article out solely for length reasons, as the Artificial intelligence article had gotten very long. It's at 60k of readable prose right now, which is already at the top end of the recommendation of WP:SIZERULE, so merging another nearly 20k back in probably isn't advisable. The tools article was originally a single section of the Artificial intelligence article and I didn't do any internal reorganization. It's possible that parts of the tools article belong in different places rather than as a coherent unit; I don't have strong feelings about that. (It's also possible I mixed the title up, and it just should be moved to Tools for artificial intelligence.) John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 00:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Artificial Intelligence and its Role in Digital ForensicsEdit

Template:Edit Artificial Intelligence and its Role in Digital Forensics Artificial Intelligence and its Role in Digital Forensics

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a well-established area that facilitates dealing with computationally complex and large problems. As the process of digital forensics requires analyzing a large amount of complex data; therefore, AI is considered to be an ideal approach for dealing with several issues and challenges currently existing in digital forensics. Among the most important concepts in different AI systems are associated with the ontology, representation and structuring of knowledge. AI has the potential for providing the necessary expertise and helps in the standardization, management and exchange of a large amount of data, information and knowledge in the forensic domain . The existing digital forensic systems are not efficient to save and store all these multiple formats of data and are not enough to handle such vast and complex data thus they do require human interaction which means the chances of delay and errors exist. But with the innovation of machine learning, this occurrence of error or delay can be prevented. The system is designed in a way that it can help detect errors but in a much faster pace and with accuracy . Several types of research have highlighted the role of different AI techniques and their benefits in providing a framework for storing and analyzing digital evidence. Among these AI techniques include machine learning (ML), NLP, speech and image detection recognition while each of these techniques has its own benefits. For instance, ML provides systems with the ability of learning and improving without being clearly programmed, such as image processing and medical diagnosis. Furthermore, NLP techniques help in extracting the information from textual data such as in the process of file fragmentation. The AI techniques and their role in digital forensics are discussed in the next chapter in detail . Aishasaif141 (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

That's an interesting statement, but you have no sources for it. Why have you posted it here in an edit request that doesn't appear to be a request for anything? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 18:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC) | answer= Actually I was trying to put it in the article.
Surprisingly, Wikipedia's digital forensics article doesn't mention artificial intelligence either. Jarble (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Announcement to remove a referenceEdit

In the article, there is a superfluous reference available. In the section “Integrating the approaches”, the 12 pages long paper “#190 Laird, John (2008). Extending the Soar cognitive architecture. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications.” was mentioned as an additional information about the SOAR cognitive architecture. The paper explains, how SOAR is using the working memory to realize general intelligence. The problem is, that the paper has a low amount of readers and was published in a highly specialized journal. If no counter arguments are provided, i will delete the reference after a waiting period of 1 week.--ManuelRodriguez (talk) 11:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Return to "Artificial intelligence" page.