 |
 |
|
|
|
|
Martin
[Guest] |
| | | | | | posted 7/18/2003 01:49 |  | | | | | | | | | Since we have been discussing people that claim to have solved AI already, here are a couple more:
http://members.aol.com/daharrell/
http://www.thinkingmachine.co.uk/
http://www.nexusgame.com/X/index.htm
http://www.nexusgame.com/X/index.htm
| | |
|
|
|
Arthur
[Guest] |
| | | | | | posted 7/18/2003 04:40 | | | | | | | | | | AI has been solved by a lot of people working on a lot of projects.
It took years, decades even, to solve AI, and now you may follow the link below not only to the AI Poll but also to each individual AI project -- solution or not :-)
| | |  Mister Poll: Artificial Intelligence (AI) State of the Art? | | |
|
|
|
Greg Binning
[Guest] |
| | | | | | posted 7/18/2003 19:36 | | | | | | | | | | Wow, that's amazing, after so many years, AI has finally been solved. I guess the people who run this site and others like it can pack up and go home now. Now that AI is solved, maybe the all the philosophers on this board can start solving other great mysteries like time travel, warp engines, etc. Hopefully they won't sit around talking about it all day long like they did with AI and actually code/engineer/build something this time. That way no one will beat them to the punch like they did with AI. :)~
| | |
|
|
|
Ribald
[Guest] |
| | | | | | posted 7/18/2003 20:50 | | | | | | | | | | Decades wasted...
And now I am too old to take up carpentry.
| | |
|
|
|
Pennywise |
| | | | | | posted 7/18/2003 22:59 | | | | | | | | | | There's no shortage of people with wishes and dreams, but no scientific background to prove out their ideas -- especially in AI.
Crank.net has a list going...
http://www.crank.net/ai.html
| | |
|
|
|
Rob Hoogers |
| | | | | | posted 7/19/2003 19:58 |  | | | | | | | | | James, does that list contain a reference to dear Arthur purely by coincidence?
| | |
|
|
|
Pennywise |
| | | | | | posted 7/20/2003 01:11 | | | | | | | | | | | |
Rob Hoogers wrote @ 7/19/2003 7:58:00 PM:
James, does that list contain a reference to dear Arthur purely by coincidence?
| |
Yes. I actually found that webpage during this thread:
http://www.ai-forum.org/topic.asp?forum_id=3&topic_id=5905&page=4
| | |
|
|
|
Arthur
[Guest] |
| | | | | | posted 7/20/2003 04:33 | | | | | | | | | | AI has been solved, and now the major work of the Technological Singularity remains to be done.
There are AI grant proposals to be written, and university courses on the further r00t-taking of AI to be taught :-)
Refinements of the implemend AI theory need to be made. Please follow the link below to read the opinion of Novamente hon-sho Ben Goertzel on the (Mentifex) Concept-Fiber Theory of Mind for AI.
| | | Ben Goertzel of Webmind and Novamente fame on Mentifex AI | | |
|
|
|
Ribald
[Guest] |
| | | | | | posted 7/20/2003 08:57 | | | | | | | | | | AI has not been solved. The only people that tell you that they have done so tend to fall in these four categories:
1 - Selling something.
2 - Cranks.
3 - Delusional.
4 - Foolish.
They are of course not mutually exclusive.
| | |
|
|
|
Martin
[Guest] |
| | | | | | posted 7/20/2003 09:04 | | | | | | | | | | | |
Arthur wrote @ 7/20/2003 4:33:00 AM:
Please follow the link below to read the opinion of Novamente hon-sho Ben Goertzel on the (Mentifex) Concept-Fiber Theory of Mind for AI.
| |
Yeah, and read this one too.
http://www.sl4.org/archive/0205/3831.html
False claims only damages the credibility of everyone in the field. An automated flowchart does not embody the solution for AI.
| | |
|
|
|
Rob Hoogers |
| | | | | | posted 7/20/2003 10:03 | | | | | | | | | | | |
Arthur wrote @ 7/20/2003 4:33:00 AM:
AI has been solved, and now the major work of the Technological Singularity remains to be done.
There are AI grant proposals to be written, and university courses on the further r00t-taking of AI to be taught :-)
Refinements of the implemend AI theory need to be made. Please follow the link below to read the opinion of Novamente hon-sho Ben Goertzel on the (Mentifex) Concept-Fiber Theory of Mind for AI.
| |
Arthur, I think you indeed have the rare ability to be able to both further your case, with the quote from the archive, and at the same time shoot yourself in the foot with an absurd claim (or two). AI hasn't been solved, not even theoretically, and your Technological Singularity is a hopeless hodge-podge of people's expectations.
No small wonder that you run afoul of people like Pennywise et al. who, although they might lack a project of this kind themselves in most cases, *are* very concerned about the scientific content, and rightly so.
| | |
|
|
|
Arthur
[Guest] |
| | | | | | posted 7/20/2003 15:05 | | | | | | | | | | AI has been solved. Prepare now for a veritable
pre-Cambrian explosion of AI evolution.
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/theory3.html -- at first, AI was solved only theoretically. That "Eureka!" moment came back in 1979 with the solution of how to superimpose Chomskyan transformational grammar upon the "black box" of a neuronal CNS (central nervous system) mindgrid. There's the science for you: standard neuroscience united with the dominant paradigm of standard linguistics.
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/jsaimind.html -- next came the software solution of AI -- not so important as the theoretical solution, but absolutely essential as a free online demonstration of the theoretical solution.
http://visitware.com/AI4U/weblog.html -- "AI For You" -- a textbook teaching the Mind-1.1 AI software in JavaScript, with ASCII diagrams at the start of all thirty-four chapters to show the software
solution of AI based on the theory solution of AI.
As Richard Nixon once said, "I have been insulted by experts," and so have I -- although it hurts to be insulted here in this otherwise hospitable AI-Forum. Please contradict the basic premise not with
slogans, not with wishful thinking, not with ad hominem aspersions, but with -- are you ready? -- ideas!
| | | AI has been solved (read there -- discuss here :-) | | |
|
|
|
Pennywise |
| | | | | | posted 7/20/2003 19:17 | | | | | | | | | | | |
Rob Hoogers wrote @ 7/20/2003 10:03:00 AM:
[1] No small wonder that you run afoul of people like Pennywise et al. who,
[2] although they might lack a project of this kind themselves in most cases,
| |
[1] I've very conscientiously bit my tongue about Arthur's work.
[2] Ad hominem circumstantial :)
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/attack.htm
I really wish everyone were forced to understand logical fallacies in third grade... it'd make conversation and debate so much more efficient.
| | |
|
|
|
Rob Hoogers |
| | | | | | posted 7/20/2003 22:07 | | | | | | | | | | | |
Pennywise wrote @ 7/20/2003 7:17:00 PM:
[1] I've very conscientiously bit my tongue about Arthur's work.
[2] Ad hominem circumstantial :)
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/attack.htm
I really wish everyone were forced to understand logical fallacies in third grade... it'd make conversation and debate so much more efficient.
| |
[1] In which meaning exactly: faithfully, accurately, or completely?
[2] Does their software make you so intrepid? Aha.
Efficient ain't the same as fun. ;)
| | |
|
|
|
ICEBreaker |
| | | | | | posted 7/22/2003 08:45 | | | | | | | | | | Is this a joke? What exactly is meant by AI being "solved"? Rudimentary AI in the form of Machine Learning exists but that is hardly the low standards we set for ourselves, is it now? There is certainly a long way to go before anyone needs to shout out "Eureka!".
| | |
|
|
|
Martin
[Guest] |
| | | | | | posted 7/22/2003 16:08 | | | | | | | | | | I started the thread to show that there are a bunch of cranks out there claiming that they have "solved" AI. They only hurt the field by exacerbating the public opinion that we are all a bunch of failures or nuts.
I believe that there is some really important work going on, and that success can be had in many areas. That is why I watch this forum. I think that they might pass a Turing variant in a matter of time.
I certainly didn't start the thread to be some kind of self congratulatory love fest.
| | |
|
|
|
Pennywise |
| | | | | | posted 7/22/2003 18:45 | | | | | | | | | | | |
Martin wrote @ 7/22/2003 4:08:00 PM:
I think that they might pass a Turing variant in a matter of time.
| |
The Turing test (or it's varients) is not the goal of serious AI.
http://www.computer.org/intelligent/homepage/x3his.htm
"In the history of AI, almost no one has ever seriously worked on the Turing test, contrary to what many journalists, science fiction authors, and philosophers seem to think. There has hardly been a paper published in a serious AI conference or AI journal in which the author claims that he or she is working on the Turing test or has solved it. There are no serious projects to my knowledge nor has any serious funding agency ever provided money for this. The Turing test is not the challenge that AI as a field is trying to solve. It would be like requiring aircraft designers to try and build replicas of birds that cannot be distinguished from real birds, instead of seriously studying aerodynamics or building airplanes that can carry cargo (and do not flap their wings nor have feathers).
Instead, there are two basic motivations for work in AI. The first motivation is purely pragmatic. Many researchers try to find useful algorithms—such as for data mining, visual image processing, and situation awareness—that have a wide range of applications. They are challenged by the intrinsic difficulties of certain problems or the potential benefits of new applications.
The second motivation is scientific. Computers and robots are used as experimental platforms for investigating issues about intelligence. Researchers who are motivated in this way, and I am one of them, try to make contributions to biology or the cognitive sciences. Although there was a lot of resistance against the synthetic methodology initially, it is now widely accepted, and AI has had an enormous impact on how we think today about the brain and the mechanisms underlying cognitive behavior." -- Luc Steels
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/02/26/loebner_part_one/print.html
"Although the challenge was at first embraced by the academic A.I. community, passing the Turing test -- which proved to be a rather more difficult nut to crack than some prominent A.I. people had said it would be -- has long since fallen out of fashion as a legitimate goal or benchmark among "real" A.I. researchers. The A.I. establishment has for more than a decade put more energy into explaining why the Turing test is irrelevant than it has into passing it." -- Salon.com, Artificial Stupidity
| | |
|
|
|
Eray Ozkural
[Guest] |
| | | | | | posted 7/22/2003 21:55 | | | | | | | | | | Is this the junk you are doing on this site? To create hype?
You really are pathetic.
__
Eray Ozkural
CS Dept., Bilkent Univ. Ankara
| | |
|
|
|
Pennywise |
| | | | | | posted 7/23/2003 05:18 | | | | | | | | | | | |
Eray Ozkural wrote @ 7/22/2003 9:55:00 PM:
Is this the junk you are doing on this site? To create hype?
| |
Eray,
I'm afraid you've taken the topic out of context, which was mostly established by other threads on the board. There have been a couple of members of this board who claim to have "solved AI", and this thread is in response to their audacious claims. The majority of us here agree with the sentiment of your post.
Here are some of the threads that sparked this one:
http://www.ai-forum.org/topic.asp?forum_id=1&topic_id=8377
http://www.ai-forum.org/topic.asp?forum_id=1&topic_id=7397
http://www.ai-forum.org/topic.asp?forum_id=1&topic_id=7459
[Update]
Evidently this comment was inspired in part by Usenet postings:
http://urlcut.com/solved
| | | Last edited by Pennywise @ 7/23/2003 8:22:00 AM | | |
|
|
|
CriX |
| | | | | | posted 7/23/2003 13:58 | | | | | | | | | | Well it's time for me to finally break it to you all. I am a bot. : ) So AI has been solved. What more proof do you need?
(hehheh)
(or maybe I'm just the first Generally Unintelligent AI. haha, I crack myself up :)
| | | Last edited by CriX @ 7/23/2003 4:47:00 PM | | |
|
|
