
#REDIRECT Talk:Artificial_intelligence
#REDIRECT Artificial_intelligence
Artificial intelligence (also known as machine intelligence and often abbreviated as AI) is intelligence (trait) exhibited by any manufactured (i.e. Wiktionary:artificial) system. The term is often applied to general purpose computers and also in the field of scientific investigation into the theory and practical application of AI. Modern AI research is concerned with producing useful machines to automate human tasks requiring intelligient behavior. Examples include scheduling resources such as military units, answering questions about products for customers, understanding and transcribing speech, and recognizing faces in CCTV cameras. As such, it has become an engineering discipline, focused on providing solutions to practical problems. AI methods were used to schedule units in the first Gulf War, and the costs saved by this efficiency have repaid the US government's entire investment in AI research since the 1950s. AI systems are now in routine use in many businesses, hospitals and military units around the world, as well as built into common home computer software such as Microsoft Office and video games. (See Raj Reddy's AAAI paper for a huge review of real-world AI systems in deployment today.) AI methods are often employed in cognitive science research, which explicitly tries to model subsystems of human cognition. (This is in contrast to AI research proper, which seeks to build useful machines, not to model humans.) Historically, AI researchers aimed for the loftier goal of so-called strong AI, of simulating complete, human-like intelligence. This goal is epitomised by the fictional strong AI computer HAL in the film ''2001: A Space Odyssey''. This goal is unlikely to be met in the near future and is no longer the subject of serious AI research. The label "AI" has something of a bad name due to the failure of these early expectations, and aggravation by various popular science writers and media personalities such as Professor Kevin Warwick whose work has raised the expectations of AI research far beyond its current capabilities. For this reason, many AI researchers say they work in cognitive science, informatics, statistical inference or information engineering in an an attempt to distance themselves from such charlatanism. AI has seen many research paradigms, including symbolic, connectionist and Bayesian approaches. There is still no consensus as to the best way to proceed. Recent fashionable research areas include Bayesian Networks and Artificial Life. == Sub-fields of AI research == ===GOFAI - 'Good Old Fashioned AI'=== * State space search * Automated planning * Combinatorial search * Expert system * Knowledge representation * Knowledge-based systems * Qualitative reasoning * Planning and scheduling ===Connectionism=== * Neural network ===Artificial Life and Evolution=== * Artificial life * Distributed artificial intelligence * Genetic programming * Genetic algorithm * Swarm Intelligence * Artificial Being ===Bayesian Methods and Learning=== * Bayesian networks * Machine learning * Pattern Recognition ===Fuzzy Systems=== * Fuzzy Logic ===Scientific Communities=== * Scientific Community Metaphor ==History== === Development of AI theory === Much of the (original) focus of artificial intelligence research draws from an experimental approach to psychology, and emphasizes what may be called linguistic intelligence (best exemplified in the Turing test). Approaches to artificial intelligence that do not focus on linguistic intelligence include robotics and collective intelligence approaches, which focus on active manipulation of an environment, or consensus decision making, and draw from biology and political science when seeking models of how "intelligent" behavior is organized. Artificial intelligence theory also draws from animal studies, in particular with insects, which are easier to emulate as robots (see artificial life), as well as animals with more complex cognition, including apes, who resemble humans in many ways but have less developed capacities for planning and cognition. AI researchers argue that animals, which are simpler than humans, ought to be considerably easier to mimic. But satisfactory computational models for animal intelligence are not available. Seminal papers advancing the concept of machine intelligence include ''A Logical Calculus of the Ideas Immanent in Nervous Activity'' (1943), by Warren McCulloch and Walter Pitts, and ''Computing machinery and intelligence'' (1950), by Alan Turing, and ''Man-Computer Symbiosis'' by J.C.R. Licklider. See cybernetics and Turing test for further discussion. There were also early papers which denied the possibility of machine intelligence on logical or philosophy grounds such as ''Minds, Machines and Gödel'' (1961) by John Lucas [http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jrlucas/Godel/mmg.html]. With the development of practical techniques based on AI research, advocates of AI have argued that opponents of AI have repeatedly changed their position on tasks such as computer chess or speech recognition that were previously regarded as "intelligent" in order to deny the accomplishments of AI. They point out that this moving of the goalposts effectively defines "intelligence" as "whatever humans can do that machines cannot". John von Neumann (quoted by E.T. Jaynes) anticipated this in 1948 by saying, in response to a comment at a lecture that it was impossible for a machine to think: "You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me ''precisely'' what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that!". Von Neumann was presumably alluding to the Church-Turing thesis which states that any effective procedure can be simulated by a (generalized) computer. In 1969 McCarthy and Hayes started the discussion about the frame problem with their essay, "Some Philosophical Problems from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence". === Experimental AI research === Artificial intelligence began as an experimental field in the 1950s with such pioneers as Allen Newell and Herbert Simon, who founded the first artificial intelligence laboratory at Carnegie Mellon University, and John McCarthy and Marvin Minsky, who founded the MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory in 1959. They all attended the aforementioned Dartmouth College summer AI conference in 1956, which was organized by McCarthy, Minsky, Nathan Rochester of International Business Machines and Claude Shannon. Historically, there are two broad styles of AI research - the "neats" and "scruffies". "Neat", ''classical'' or ''symbolic'' AI research, in general, involves symbolic manipulation of abstract concepts, and is the methodology used in most expert systems. Parallel to this are the "scruffy", or "connectionist", approaches, of which artificial neural networks are the best-known example, which try to "evolve" intelligence through building systems and then improving them through some automatic process rather than systematically designing something to complete the task. Both approaches appeared very early in AI history. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s scruffy approaches were pushed to the background, but interest was regained in the 1980s when the limitations of the "neat" approaches of the time became clearer. However, it has become clear that contemporary methods using ''both'' broad approaches have severe limitations. Artificial intelligence research was very heavily funded in the 1980s by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency in the United States and by the fifth generation computer systems project in Japan. The failure of the work funded at the time to produce immediate results, despite the grandiose promises of some AI practitioners, led to correspondingly large cutbacks in funding by government agencies in the late 1980s, leading to a general downturn in activity in the field known as AI winter. Over the following decade, many AI researchers moved into related areas with more modest goals such as machine learning, robotics, and computer vision, though research in pure AI continued at reduced levels. ==Modern AI== Modern AI research focusses on practical engineering tasks. (Supporters of Strong AI may call this approach 'weak AI'.) There are several fields of AI, one of which is natural language. Many weak AI fields have specialised software or programming languages created for them. For example, one of the 'most-human' natural language chatterbots, A.L.I.C.E., uses a programming language AIML that is specific to its program, and the various clones, named Alicebots. Jabberwacky is a little closer to strong AI, since it learns how to converse from the ground up based solely on user interactions. When viewed with a moderate dose of cynicism, AI can be viewed as ‘the set of computer science problems without good solutions at this point’. Once a sub-discipline results in useful work, it is carved out of artificial intelligence and given its own name. Examples of this are pattern recognition, image processing, neural networks, natural language processing, robotics and game theory. While the roots of each of these disciplines is firmly established as having been part of artificial intelligence, they are now thought of as somewhat separate. Whilst progress towards the ultimate goal of human-like intelligence has been slow, many spinoffs have come in the process. Notable examples include the languages Lisp programming language and Prolog, which were invented for AI research but are now used for non-AI tasks. Hacker culture first sprang from AI laboratories, in particular the MIT AI Lab, home at various times to such luminaries as McCarthy, Minsky, Seymour Papert (who developed Logo programming language there), Terry Winograd (who abandoned AI after developing SHRDLU). Many other useful systems have been built using technologies that at least once were active areas of AI research. Some examples include: * Chinook was declared the Man-Machine World Champion in checkers in 1994. * Deep Blue, a chess-playing computer, beat Garry Kasparov in a famous match in 1997. * InfoTame, a text analysis search engine developed by the KGB for automatically sorting millions of pages of communications intercepts. * Fuzzy logic, a technique for reasoning under uncertainty, has been widely used in industrial control systems. * Expert systems are being used to some extent industrially. * Machine translation systems such as SYSTRAN are widely used, although results are not yet comparable with human translators. * Neural networks have been used for a wide variety of tasks, from intrusion detection systems to Creatures. * Optical character recognition systems can translate arbitrary typewritten European script into text. * Handwriting recognition is used in millions of personal digital assistants. * Speech recognition is commercially available and is widely deployed. * Computer algebra systems, such as Mathematica and Macsyma, are commonplace. * Computer vision systems are used in many industrial applications ranging from hardware verification to security cameras . * AI Planning methods were used to automatically plan the deployment of US forces during Gulf War I. This task would have cost months of time and millions of dollars to perform manually, and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency stated that the money saved on this single application was more than their total expenditure on AI research over the last 30 years. The vision of artificial intelligence replacing human professional judgment has arisen many times in the history of the field, and today in some specialized areas where "expert systems" are routinely used to augment or to replace professional judgment in some areas of engineering and of medicine. An example of an expert system is Clippy the paperclip in Microsoft Office which tried to predict what advice the user would like. ==Micro-World AI== The real world is full of distracting and obscuring detail: generally science progresses by focussing on artificially simple models of reality (in physics, frictionless planes and perfectly rigid bodies, for example). In 1970 Marvin Minsky and Seymour Papert, of the MIT AI Laboratory, proposed that AI research should likewise focus on developing programs capable of intelligent behaviour in artificially simple situations known as micro-worlds. Much research has focussed on the so-called blocks world, which consists of coloured blocks of various shapes and sizes arrayed on a flat surface. [http://www.alanturing.net/turing_archive/pages/Reference%20Articles/what_is_AI/What%20is%20AI06.html Micro-World AI] ==Applications== * Natural language processing * Program synthesis * Robotics * Computer vision ==Languages, Programming Style and Software Culture== GOFAI research is often done in Lisp or Prolog. Bayesian work often uses Matlab or Lush (a numerical dialect of Lisp). These languages include many specialist probabalistic libraries. Real-life and especially real-time systems are likely to use C++. AI programmers are often academics and emphasise rapid development and prototyping rather than bulletproof software engineering practices. Hence the use of interpreted languages to empower rapid command-line testing and experimentation. AI culture is historically tied to Unix and hacker cultures, as they share a common birthplace at MIT. The most basic A.I. program is a single Logical conditional, such as "If A, then B." If you type an 'A' letter, the computer will show you a 'B' letter. Basically, you are teaching a computer to do a task. You input one thing, and the computer responds with something you told it to do or say. All programs have If-Then logic. A more complex example is if you type in "Hello.", and the computer responds "How are you today?" This response is not the computer's own thought, but rather a line you wrote into the program before. Whenever you type in "Hello.", the computer always responds "How are you today?". It seems as if the computer is alive and thinking to the casual observer, but actually it is an automated response. A.I. is often a long series of If-Then (or Cause and Effect) statements. A randomizer can be added to this. The randomizer creates two or more response paths. For example, if you type "Hello", the computer may respond with "How are you today?" or "Nice weather" or "Would you like to play a game?" Three responses (or 'thens') are now possible instead of one. There is an equal chance that any one of the three responses will show. This is similar to a pull-cord talking doll that can respond with a number of sayings. A computer A.I. program can have 1,000s of responses to the same input. This makes it less predictable and closer to how a real person would respond, because a living person would respond unpredictably. When 1,000s of input (Ifs) are written in (not just "Hello.") and 1,000s of responses (Thens) written into the A.I. program, then the computer can talk (or type) with most people, if those people know the If statement input lines to type. Many games, like chess and strategy games, use action responses instead of typed responses, so that players can play against the computer. Robots with A.I. brains would use If-Then statements and randomizers to make descisions and speak. However, the input may be a sensed object in front of the robot instead of a "Hello." line, and the response may be to pick up the object instead of a response line. ==AI in the UK== AI research is carried out all over the world. In the UK, the most noted universities are Edinburgh and Sussex although AI research activities can be found in most universities in the country. Since the publication of the Lighthill report UK funding for "AI" dried up, though UK research continues under more politically-acceptable headings such as "Informatics", "Information Engineering" and "Inference". Microsoft runs a large AI research group in Cambridge which works closely with the university. HP labs in Bristol, BT in Ipswich, and various government defence agencies also research AI applications. ==AI in Business== According to Haag, Cummings, etc.(2004) there are four common techniques of Artificial Intelligence used in businesses: *Expert Systems *Neural Networks *Genetic Algorithms *Intelligent Agents Expert Systems apply reasoning capabilities to reach a conclusion. An expert system can process large amounts of known information and provide conclusions based on them. Neural Networks are AI that are capable of finding and differentiating between patterns. Police Departments use neural networks to identify corruption. Genetic Algorithms are designed to apply the survival of the fittest process to generate increasingly better solutions to the problem. Investment brokers use Genetic Algorithms to create the best possible combination of investment opportunities for their clients. An Intelligence Agent is software that assists you, or acts on your behalf, in performing repetitive computer-related tasks. Examples of its uses are data mining programs and monitoring and surveillance agents. Logic programming was sometimes considered a field of artificial intelligence, but this is no longer the case. ==Machines Displaying Some Degree of Intelligence== There are many examples of programs displaying some degree of intelligence. Some of these are: * [http://www.20q.net Twenty Questions] - A neural-net based game of 20 questions * [http://start.csail.mit.edu The Start Project] - a web-based system which answers questions in English. * [http://www.brainboost.com Brainboost] - another question-answering system * Cyc, a knowledge base with vast collection of facts about the real world and logical reasoning ability. * Jabberwacky, a learning chatterbot * ALICE, a chatterbot * [http://www.a-i.com/alan1 Alan], another chatterbot * [http://www.cybermecha.com/Studio Albert One], multi-faceted chatterbot * ELIZA, a program which pretends to be a psychotherapist, developed in 1966 * PAM (Plan Applier Mechanism) - a story understanding system developed by John Wilensky in 1978. * SAM (Script applier mechanism) - a story understanding system, developed in 1975. * SHRDLU - an early natural language understanding computer program developed in 1968-1970. * Creatures, a computer game with breeding, evolving creatures coded from the genetic level upwards using a sophisticated biochemistry and neural network brains. * [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3521852.stm BBC news story] on the creator of ''Creatures'' latest creation. Steve Grand's ''Lucy''. * [http://www.kurzweilcyberart.com/KCATaaron/STAFsample AARON] - artificial intelligence, which creates its own original paintings, developed by Harold Cohen. * Eurisko - a language for solving problems which consists of heuristics, including heuristics for how to use and change its heuristics. Developed in 1978 by Douglas Lenat. * [http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/medical-vision/ X-Ray Vision for Surgeons] - a group in MIT which researches medical vision. * [http://www.jellyfish-ai.com Neural networks-based programs for backgammon and go]. * [http://www.shakespearebot.com Talk to William Shakespeare] - William Shakespeare chatbot == AI Researchers == There are many thousands of AI researchers (see :Category:Artificial intelligence researchers) around the world at hundreds of research institutions and companies. Among the many who have made significant contributions are: * Alan Turing * Boris Katz * Doug Lenat * Douglas Hofstadter * Geoffrey Hinton * John McCarthy (computer scientist) * Karl Sims * Kevin Warwick * Igor Aleksander * Marvin Minsky * Seymour Papert * Maggie Boden * Mike Brady * Oliver Selfridge * Raj Reddy * Judea Pearl * Rodney Brooks * Roger Schank * Terry Winograd == Further reading == === Non-fiction === :See also List of important publications in computer science#Artificial intelligence. * ''Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach'' by Stuart J. Russell and Peter Norvig ISBN 0130803022 * ''Gödel, Escher, Bach : An Eternal Golden Braid'' by Douglas R. Hofstadter * ''Understanding Understanding: Essays on Cybernetics and Cognition'' by Heinz von Foerster * ''In the Image of the Brain: Breaking the Barrier Between Human Mind and Intelligent Machines'' by Jim Jubak * ''Today's Computers, Intelligent Machines and Our Future'' by Hans Moravec, Stanford University * ''The Society of Mind'' by Marvin Minsky, ISBN 0671657135 15 March 1998 * ''Perceptrons: An Introduction to Computational Geometry'' by Marvin Minsky and Seymour Papert ISBN 0262631113 28 December 1987 * ''The Brain Makers: Genius, Ego and Greed In The Quest For Machines That Think'' by HP Newquist ISBN 0672304120. === Sources === * John McCarthy: ''Proposal for the Dartmouth Summer Research Project On Artificial Intelligence''. [http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/dartmouth/dartmouth.html] * John Searle: ''Minds, Brains and Programs'' Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3 (3): 417-457 1980. http://www.bbsonline.org/documents/a/00/00/04/84/bbs00000484-00/bbs.searle2.html == See also == * List of fictional computers * List of fictional robots and androids === Philosophy === * Functionalism (philosophy of mind) * Simulated consciousness * Searle's Chinese room * Consciousness * Scientific Community Metaphor === Logic === * Semantics === Science === * Cognitive science * Computer science * Cybernetics * Psychology * Biosynthetic phylogeny * Scientific Community Metaphor === Applications === * List of Artificial Intelligence projects * Artificial intelligence agent * Bio-inspired computing * Game AI * computer game bot === Uncategorised === * Collective intelligence - the idea that a relatively large number of people co-operating in one process can lead to reliable action. in time of the emergence of smarter-than-human intelligence. * Mindpixel - A project to collect simple true / false assertions and collaboratively validate them with the aim of using them as a body of human common sense knowledge that can be utilised by a machine. * Game_programmer#Artificial_Intelligence_Programmer * truth maintenance systems - by Gerald Jay Sussman and Richard Stallman * K-line (artificial intelligence) * artificial consciousness == External links == === General === * [http://wikibooks.org/wiki/Programming:AI Programming:AI] @ Wikibooks.org * [http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~russell/ai.html University of Berkeley AI Resources] linking to about 869 other WWW pages about AI * [http://www.loebner.net/Prizef/loebner-prize.html Loebner Prize website] * [http://www.jabberwacky.com Jabberwacky - a learning AI chatterbot] * [http://purl.net/net/AIWiki AIWiki] - a wiki devoted to AI. *[http://ai.squeakydolphin.com/ AIAWiki] - AI algorithms and research. ''(temporarily offline due to problems with spammers)''
* [http://www.dmoz.org/Computers/Artificial_Intelligence/ AI web category on Open Directory]
* [http://www.mindpixel.com/ Mindpixel] "The Planet's Largest Artificial Intelligence Effort"
* [http://commonsense.media.mit.edu/cgi-bin/search.cgi/ OpenMind CommonSense] "Teaching computers the stuff we all know"
* [http://www.bitesizeinc.net/index.php/ouija.html Artificially Intelligent Ouija Board] - creative example of human-like AI
* [http://www.geocities.com/francorbusetti/ Heuristics and AI in finance and investment]
* [http://sourceforge.net/softwaremap/trove_list.php?form_cat=133 SourceForge Open Source AI projects] - 1139 projects
* [http://www.aaai.org/AITopics/html/ethics.html Ethical and Social Implications of AI en Computerization]
* [http://www.cs.unm.edu/~luger/ai-final/software.html AI algorithm implementations and demonstrations]
* [http://artificial-intell.blogspot.com/2005/04/artificial-intelligence-in-nutshell.html/ Artificial Intelligence in a nutshell]
* [http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/ Marvin Minsky's Homepage]
* [http://www.ai.mit.edu/ MIT's AI Lab]
* [http://www.ifi.unizh.ch/ailab/ AI Lab Zurich]
* [http://www.inf.ed.ac.uk/ School of Informatics at the University of Edinburgh]
* [http://www.sussex.ac.uk/informatics/ Informatics Department at the University of Sussex]
* [http://www.isi.edu/divisions/div3/ AI research group at Information Sciences Institute]
* [http://metainformaciones.blogspot.com/2005/02/minksy-y-la-programacin.html Why Programming is a Good Medium for Expressing Poorly Understood and Sloppily Formulated Ideas]
* [http://www.aiknow.net aiKnow: Cognitive Artificial Intelligence]
* [http://www.alanturing.net/turing_archive/pages/Reference%20Articles/What%20is%20AI.html What is Artificial Intelligence?]
* [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-ai/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Logic and Artificial Intelligence]
* [http://research.zonebg.com/en/indexen.htm Mental Matrixes, Parallel Logic]
* [http://web.peoriadesignweb.com/dev/ai/ AI Search Engine]
=== AI related organizations ===
* [http://ai-consortium.com/content/ AI Consortium]
* [http://www.aaai.org/ American Association for Artificial Intelligence]
* [http://www.eccai.org/ European Coordinating Committee for Artificial Intelligence]
* [http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~acl/ The Association for Computational Linguistics]
* [http://www.dotmotive.com/~aisu/ Artificial Intelligence Student Union]
* [http://www.dfki.de/ German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence, DFKI GmbH]
* [http://www.auai.org/ Association for Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence]
* [http://www.singinst.org Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence]
* [http://www.aisb.org.uk/ The Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and the Simulation of Behaviour (United Kingdom)]
* [http://agiri.org/ AGIRI - Artificial General Intelligence Research Institute]
Artificial intelligence Science Philosophy of mind Robotics
fa:هوش مصنوعی
ms:Kecergasan Buatan
th:ปัญญาประดิษฐ์
==Modern AI== I've modernized this page a bit -- AI has moved on a long way since the sci-fi days of HAL and artificial brains etc. (I'm a doctoral student in AI, I did my MSc in AI too, and it is now a fairly rigorous engineering discipline, which sadly still has a bad name due to its former image.) If you want to discuss silicon brains, androids, etc (which I am indeed a fan of!) please do it on the 'strong AI' page. If you want to discuss modelling humans per se, please do it on the cogsci page. Please don't degrade my profession by assocating it with these things though -- dont get me wrong, I love those ideas (especially the quantum brain hypothesis), and indeed have written bits of their wikipedia entries, but I dont think it does anyone any good to conflate them with professional engineering AI work. Modern AI research is more concerned with identifyign Al Quaida suspects on subway camera images than sittign around in armchairs talking about the nature of mind. ==Missing Topics== Some of the more technical parts of AI are missing such as links to the Rule based languages, fuzzy logic, Rete Algorithm, forward chaining, backward chaining, expert systems, perceptron, neural networks, simulated annealing, etc. My suggestion is to add a subtopic such as "AI Implementation" or "AI Technology" ==Ethical problems== I don't know if you'd agree, but I think the original vision of AI has by now been thoroughly discredited by ethical problems. Creatures that satisfy the original definition of "intelligence", e.g. Great Apes, are not accorded the respect of personhood. Meanwhile, stupid programs of bad research continue to propagate themselves due to funding inertia and influence of top researchers like Minsky, who hvaen't produced anything worth a damn in years. Welcome to tenure, I guess, but the people building robot insects or hooking up humans into cyborg colonies (woops forget to mention Steve Mann under collective intelligence) or talking about augmenting apes witih speech synthesizers just don't believe any of the nonsense that Minsky believed... ::Steve Mann is a moron with cool toys. Minsky, on the other hand, was a visionary. ==Great Apes== Deception is the key difference between humans and Great Apes. Like four year old children, Great Apes do not have a "theory of mind" that enables them to lie *convincingly* by imagining how the other will think things are. Human children acquire this at four and a half or so. Great Apes never do. They lie very badly. The thing called "intelligence" seems to me to be a combination of perception, planning, empathy, cognition and deception. One decides for oneself which to test for, and what to emphasize, and what to extinct. AI is a nonsense goal, just "infinite symbol manipulation" really, some of which symbols are maybe good enough maps to walk over rough terrain in a robot insect, but none of which are good enough to deceive a suspicious adult human. ==Specific nitpicks== Firstly, thanks for the edits. The argument is now much more readable. I still have some serious problems with the article as it stands, however. Firstly, some specific nitpicks: ::good, I'll answer in depth, although we might want to fix cognitive bias first as some of these same issues are mentioned there... relating AI and cogsci is easy enough, relating AI to cognitive *bias* might be harder... may require good articles on culture bias and notation bias first... personally I believe strongly that recognition that "oh, that's intelligent" is a combination of cognitive, culture, and notation bias. That we will give up the word and concept soon when we realize we're engaged in a hate exercise. So, my bias here revealed, here's why I believe that: :Turing also helped author the Church-Turing Thesis, an important advance in the philosophy of mathematics , which seems to imply that adult human linguistic or symbolic intelligence can be no more complex than the process of creating a mathematical proof itself. ::I believe Hofstader and Daniel Dennett claimed that this was one implication of the CTT - that to understand "intelligence" as understood in the Western world we had to understand the process of mathematical proving and discrediting of proofs... as cognitive, social or notational/formal as that may be. This would not be a controversial position w.r.t. proofs and intelligence given other beliefs in the philosophy of mathematics - and the experience of Erdos which seems to prove that mathematics is at least to some degree "a social activity". So the bad word here may be "creating"... it's maybe "discovering", or "inspecting", or "discrediting"... is "creating" a sum of these? Hmm... Modern theorists often reject the assertion that this, or playing chess, is in fact what humans mean when they recognize each other as being concious, wise, or aware. Turing's Test highlights these questions by suggesting that adult humans perhaps assume too much based on mere language - while paradoxically rejecting or ignoring the intelligence of Great Apes, who can master 2000-4000 word vocabularies. Firstly, all the Church-Turing thesis actually says is that anything that can be effectively computed, can be computed on a Turing machine. Many people do draw the implication that anything the brain "computes" can be computed on a Turing machine, so any limitations of a Turing machine are also limitations of the brain. Beyond that, I can't see your contention. Your earlier ::It's the relationship between what mathematicians and scientists understand as "computed" versus what living creatures with bodies walking or swimming around with other bodies in ecologies would say had been successfully decided. Difference between "decided" and "computed" being bodily commitment. Key distinction made by body philosophers back to Wittgenstein. Turing and Wittgenstein talked about this but in terms most people don't seem to understand as being "about this"... comment that "all forms of symbolic or linguistic intelligence as being equivalent to the Turing Machine, which in turn was equivalent to "mathematicians doing proofs in the usual way" isn't directly reflected in the article, and the second part of that comment isn't obvious to me. Could you spell it out for me really slowly and clearly? :I'm best to dig for my Locke, e.g. [http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/Projects/digitexts/locke/understanding/chapter0414.html "...Human Understanding"], "Men often stay not warily to examine the agreement or disagreement of two ideas which they are desirous or concerned to know; but, either incapable of such attention as is requisite in a long train of gradations, or impatient of delay, lightly cast their eyes on, or wholly pass by the proofs; and so, without making out the demonstration, determine of the agreement or disagreement of two ideas, as it were by a view of them as they are at a distance, and take it to be the one or the other, as seems most likely to them upon such a loose survey. This faculty of the mind, when it is exercised immediately about things, is called judgment; when about truths delivered in words, is most commonly called assent or dissent" :I guess if you believe Locke, it's obvious that judgement is involved in the acceptance of the CTT or any mathematical proof of same. Assent or dissent to it by any given mathematician, "delivered in words" or otherwise made clear. So, whose judgement is involved in determining if something is intelligent... in science, largely, the mathematician, or the experimenter, or the *funder* (an underexplored problem only now getting serious attention). So: ::Hmmm. Whilst it doesn't appear to be crucial for your argument, if I'm reading your comment correctly you are misunderstanding the CTT. It is a thesis, not a theorem. It can never be proven. :: "It can never be proven"? Well, perhaps Dennet and Hofstader intended to make it into a theorem. Parallel to what happened in Gaia theory when the Gaia Hypothesis (untestable to any ethical player) evolved into Gaia Theory (proper). It isn't crucial to this argument, but I think a thesis that cannot be proven is not a thesis at all... no falsifiability? :the funding and experimenting decisions we would recognize as guided by some very-hard-to-formalize situational and bodily ethics and constraints... leaving only the mathematician to decide if something is "intelligent" without such obvious constraints... his is the most "neutral point of view". :the fact that they are "the experts" on logic and proofs, and decide if any given evidence has invalidated a thesis via mathematical prediction, makes the community of mathematicians and its collective assent or dissent critical. How do they "commune"? "By doing proofs in the usual way", e.g. the social way of Erdos, the inspirational way of Galois, the instructional way of Euler... "Read Euler, he is the master of us all" - advice to Galois. Secondly, who are "modern theorists", and what is the "this" in the phrase "the assertion that this"? :"this" being "symbolic or linguistic intelligence" of adult (>5 years anyway) humans. The "modern theorists" are sometimes called post-linguists, many are primatologists or others doing field studies with animal subjects, or building insect robots, etc. - basically a mixed bag of people who reject the Turing test, consider Great Apes to be "people" in every moral/emotional sense and are pushing for this legal status (http://personhood.org), *OR* are determined to work only on survival-type intelligence like that of insects... ignoring language as irrelevant. Chomsky sits firmly in the linguistic camp. However Chomsky also thinks Great Apes aren't "intelligent" in the sense of humans, which seems like "whatever computers haven't done yet, and Great Apes can't do" type of human racism. Best known people here? Those concerned with timing in language, like Goffman, Thirdly, whilst it's hardly a peer-reviewed academic journal, [http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/chimps980603.html|this ABC news article] credits chimpanzees with a 240-word vocabulary, an order of magnitude less than the 2000-4000 quoted in the article (a stat that tallies with my own recollection of the topic). Furthermore, from what I remember of my undergraduate psychology studies, signing great apes can't construct actual sentences - the best they can do is possibly construct two-word phrases - "tickle me" and "feed me" being by far the most common :) :seems to be limited to direct-object (mostly two word) verb phrases, [http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1175/6_32/56883557/print.jhtml old studies gave rise to the figure "125"], a more modern [http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/000000005549.htm one lists 150-1000, and is written by anti-personhood experimenters]. Seems to argue equivalent of two year old human child's skills - while the advocates argue that they're more like four year olds. The famous Koko the gorilla had 1000 words in ASL. One group claims that [http://www.orangutans-sos.org/archivenews/archnewsmisc.htm adult orang-utans could master 2000 words] "he already has a 2000-word vocabulary in sign language" and is shifting apparently to satisfy skeptics, bonobos trained from childhood can master 4000, according to the people doing the keyboard work. Can't validate the 4000 - maybe they withdrew it until they can satisfy all the skeptics - or maybe they projected that number based on comparisons of early progress? It does seem to require intensive training to get this far. There seem to be no challengers to Koko's claim to naming and simple direct verb object skills. There is some question whether she can invent words. but not all of this is interesting to AI except insofar as differences between species may eventually tell us much about cognitive skills of the highest order of living creatures closest to us... but ok enough, let's limit claims to the 150-1000 and note the "disputed claims of 2000 or more" arising from sign language. What difference does it make to AI whether chimps, gorillas, dolphins or parrots are "intelligent" or not? It might matter to ethicists, theologans, and psychologists, but to me it seems of little philosophical import to the practice of building systems to solve problems which computers currently don't do very well but which humans (and to a large extent animals) do well, which to me seems to be the practical goal of AI. :to have "artificial intelligence" the naive mind expects you must be able to measure or recognize "intelligence". [http://www.interweave.org/the_guide/guisu98a.htm this is a good summary of non-linguistic "intelligence" that apes share with humans] ::Ah, this is where I disagree with the "naive mind". Consider a machine translation system. Who really cares whether it's intelligent or not, as long as it accurately translates prose from the source to the target language? The definitional arguments are certainly fascinating, but you can do lots of very useful and interesting things without getting caught up in them. :::who is judging "accurately"? Avoiding these arguments is utterly unethical - it leaves the realm of science and enters mere technologies of persuasion to get more funding to do more persuasion... If you submit a message direct from God that is seeming gibberish, and a program translates it as "Vote Green Or Die", that is quite good enough for me... As to your "ethical argument", you're absolutely right - I disagree. Whilst the "personhood" of the great apes is certainly open to debate, it has no relevance to AI research. As to the frankly disappointing research of AI research to date, that is certainly true - AI research haves't achieved nearly as much as many thought it would. However, I don't see that it follows that AI is fundamentally impossible. : some scientists call this a moral hazard, others an opportunity: extinct the culture that wild chimps and gorillas live in, and then you don't have to address their wild intelligence either - you can define intelligence to get grant money for whatever you can convince another human "intelligence" is... while I would say that preserving those cultures to understand intelligence as such is an opportunity, and probably driving the falsifiability disputes. :I think AI "progress" is "disappointing" because it sets up a false goal - deception itself - honest assessments of intelligence would set the Great Apes up as benchmarks and assume that humans are the deluded ones making up criteria for their own prestige (as a species, or as researchers specializing in that criteria). :Finally, AI that doesn't respect nearly-human creatures won't respect us either - it's not like we can patch in a moral code when we notice that it wants to slaughter us all as we are slaughtering apes... has to be part of the foundation ontology to recognize certain empathic common grounds... so this is an extension of the insect-makers' argument that you must solve the problems of getting around, finding food, getting along with others of your kind who find the same food in the same place (and maybe fight over it) before you can look at these absurdly abstract problems like chess or "go"... which are meaningless as tests of anything a living being would care about. ::WRT your discussion of "whether a system should be described as intelligent" or not, you can debate until the cows come home whether something is truly "intelligent", but, for many AI researchers, there is a big shrug of "who cares"? If it does something useful, isn't that significant in itself? ::: useful *TO WHOM*? If I write a program to rationalize absurd corporate structures that loot shareholders blind and still satisfy the auditors, then the significance is not scientific nor "usefulness" in the sense of creating value for living beings with real life concerns. Those AI "researchers" who say "who cares" are simply criminal frauds, whose entire career is an aspiration to be Andersen... the word "persuaders" is far more appropriate for such thugs... ::I'm a living being, and I care about chess :) More seriously, AI researchers lost interest in chess a very long time ago, as it became obvious that brute-force search, a technique basically useless for the more real-world problems, is the most effective method for computer chess. See the discussion I wrote on this topic in the chess article. ::: I once asked a fellow on an elevator "why play chess if machines play it better?" He answered "because the machine can't talk about the game afterwards". It was the best answer ever, and I did not catch his name. I submit that you as a living being care about chess because it distracts from the problems of living... "why do you drink?" - The Little Prince "to forget" - The Tippler "what must you forget?" "that I drink!" ::As to instilling morals in AI systems, that kind of debate is so far ahead of the capabilities of current systems as to be essentially irrelevant at this time. ::: two options: 1. ignore moral concerns and nurturing of nascent intelligences by mothers, wait until they are capable of building their own fusion reactors and extruding their own DNA sequencers. 2. ban all smart-as-primate-or-better AI not raised by a real living primate mother, and work out the problems well in advance. [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biosafety/message/19 Lee Kent suggested this in May 2001] long before AI teleprompting salesmen persuading suicide bombers was in vogue: "I believe the most logical solution is to parent such a machine. Have a 'mother' bond with the machine and vice-versa. It may sound ridiculous to think of it this way but it is the way humans develop and if we wish to protect the machine from a wrong direction in progression then we have to provide an example that means something to it. And anyway its nothing more than a brand manager's job only taking the job very seriously, applying a human perspective to the machine." ::: I submit that The Precautionary Principle argues strongly for Lee's view. ==More generally== OK, there's the nitpicks out of the way. More generally, I find the tone of the article overly negative and somewhat narrow view of AI. There are quite a few alternative definitions of what AI is about, and most workers in the area are focussed on modest tasks and, over :perhaps a comparison chart that sets up "ant, bee, bird, rabbit, lesser ape, great ape, human" degrees of intelligence and uses the [http://www.interweave.org/the_guide/guisu98a.htm criteria here] for non-linguistic intelligence? That seems very non-controversial, although lots of work, and a good balance to the Turing Test arguments (which have the merit of simplicity and honest reflections of how humans deem each other intelligent in conversation]. ::Non-controversial? Gimme a break! In any case, I go back to the question I posed before: this might be all very relevant to a discussion of *intelligence*, but how does it specifically relate to *artificial intelligence*, the topic of this article. ::: because the insect-robot-builders, ape-augmenters, collective-intelligencers, etc, are all different responses/objections to linguistic AI as defined by Turing (perfectly in my view, the Turing Test is an ontological thesis and has cosmology implications if you believe in The Daniel Test... AIs that convince you they are God and end the test by turning you into a suicide bomber to get them more power). the decades, made real progress at them. I intend to add considerably more material on this later, at which point I hope to continue the discussions with you guys :) --user:Robert Merkel :it's all a question of how we structure it, and how we compare ecological, sexual/linguistic, ethical, or moral/restraint levels of intelligence - and also if we think 'evolution is intelligence and intelligence is evolution' as Karl Popper seemed to think... ::Hmmm. Can I just suggest that while the "philosphy of AI" is a topic worthy of extensive discussion, there's much more to the field than that? I think that sums up my biggest objection to the current tone of this article. --user:Robert Merkel ::: "theology of AI" would be better as the concerns tend to be moral, ontological, and cosmological... and have nothing to do with ethics, epistemology, or metaphysics... use the "theology" breakdown when concerned with role of life forms in universe, use the "philosophy" breakdown when concerned with getting tenure. :-) == Removal of assertion (context not given) == Removed from the article: :'', who can master 2000-4000 word vocabularies'' What evidence is there for this? Cites? :: all sign language studies, and the linguists are disputing those into nonexistence by claiming cueing. I think this is the last move by selfish people trying to preserve their provably-worthless non-field (e.g. Chomsky), and that the only linguists worth a damn are looking at polysemy, plus maybe George Lakoff whose theories are replacing Chomsky's as political darlings on both sides of the AI/not fence. He's carved out quite a niche! :You're obviously a big fan of this Lakoff character, but do you really think his theories have had time to be properly assessed by the wider academic community, particularly if they have the cross-disciplinary implications they appear to by what you've said about them? My big problem with some of your references to this stuff is perhaps that you're pushing a line that hasn't been widely (emphasis *widely*) debated yet. --user:Robert Merkel :: Lakoff has been saying the same thing for 20 years to different communities. The review of "the wider academic community" has included so far about 100 gurus, a dozen solid reviews, and several intersting debates. This is worth writing about here. Is there more to say? Yes, but for that you have to join a mailing list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the-embodiment :: and, the reviews do not suggest there is any dispute about his making strong metaphorical bindings between human cognitive science and foundations of mathematics - specifically Euler's Identity. So far I've kept discussion of Lakoff et at in cognitive science of mathematics and not generalized this to cover the great work in statistics bias of the 1960s. But, if pressed, I'll be writing a textbook here... and every single step towards that thesis defies and destructs both the particle physics foundation ontology and artificial intelligence along with Mutual Assured Destruction - all sad delusions from my point of view, but predictable given Descartes' error of assumption re: "Other". ==The goal is== Firstly, the goal of this article, like any other article on Wikipedia, is to present the topic fairly and accurately, and let people draw their own conclusions. When the topic is an academic discipline or school of thought, a fair and accurate presentation includes fair and accurate coverage of the criticisms of such a school of thought, attributed to the people who make them. Given that, we need to: * Define the goals of AI (as there are quite a few definitions, present some of the major ones and compare and contrast). * Discuss the different methodologies used to try and achieve them, with some sense of the progression of AI research. * Present the results of using those methodologies, both applied to the original goals and elsewhere. * Discuss how, clearly, the original goals have not been achieved in their entirety, and some of the speculation as to how the original goals might yet be achieved. * Discuss speculation of what it might mean if those goals *are* achieved. * Discuss the views of the AI skeptics - including people who believe it can't be done with existing methodologies, believe it can't be done, full stop, and people who think it's unethical to do so. I believe an article presenting things in pretty much that order is the way to go. What do you think? ==Church-Turing misunderstood?== ===Unintelligible?=== Yanked from the article: :The philosophy of mathematics asks if adult human linguistic or symbolic intelligence is any more complex than mathematical proof itself, and whether this is in fact what humans mean when they recognize each other as being concious, wise, or aware. Turing's Test highlights these questions by suggesting that adult humans perhaps assume too much based on mere language: Taking the second sentence first, that's a rather novel interpretation of the significance of the Turing Test, to say the least, and one that doesn't really fit with the reading of Turing's original paper IMHO. It might be a more reasonable response to some of the counterarguments raised about the Turing Test (notably the Chinese Room). As to the first sentence, I can't parse it. --user:Robert Merkel ---- Fixed. The "mere language" issue is now illustrated by the apparent "human racism" of the theorists who reject Great Apes' intelligence. It's not that Turing's paper highlighted the issue of what matters in language but rather than Turing's Test itself did - by failing to convince people it was decisive. The first sentence is also fixed, and refers more directly to the CHurch-Turing Thesis, which was the specific contribution, and which defined all forms of symbolic or linguistic intelligence as being equivalent to the Turing Machine, which in turn was equivalent to "mathematicians doing proofs in the usual way" === Incorrect and obscure === I removed the following paragraph: :''The Church-Turing thesis, which demonstrates the undecidability of complex mathematical systems, has been interpreted by some philosophy of mathematics to imply that adult human linguistic or symbolic intelligence can be no more complex than the process of creating a mathematical proof itself. '' # The Church-Turing thesis does not demonstrate the undecidability of anything. It simply says that all "reasonable" definitions of algorithm amount to the same thing, namely to Turing machines. Maybe it was confused with Turing's proof of the undecidability of the Halting problem. # The second half-sentence is unintelligible. I suspect it refers to the work of Penrose, who is not a philosopher of mathematics. His main argument is based on Gödel's incompleteness theorems, and he argues that no machine can ever do everything a human can do. This is an extreme minority position. user:AxelBoldt, Wednesday, April 10, 2002 ==What successes has AI had? == For the benefit of the skeptics among us, wouldn't it be desirable to list some of the outstanding successes of AI so far? (other than beating Kasparov at chess, I'm not sure what those are; and even that I'm not sure counts as genuine AI) --:Seb There are much less such successes than average person would expect. There are some essayes about AI chatbots on http://www.alicebot.org/ (ALICE chatbot won "best chatbot" Loebner prize in 2000 and 2001, so author known what he is talking about), where author says that there was almost no progress in this field of AI since :Eliza. The most important things to notice: * we still don't have machine translation * we still don't have something that can do Turing Test better than Eliza * we still don't have automatic algorithm proving * no "important" math theorem was proved by automatic proving machine * computers almost universally are based on strictly deterministic algorithms, not heuristics --:Taw : "we still don't have machine translation": this is not really an argument. When people say they want to have machine translation, they usually mean "perfect machine translation". This however is unfair, because humans cannot translate perfectly either. I am pretty sure we can get near-perfect machine translation just using statistical methods, but I would not necessarily call that intelligence.--branko == Rewrites of the article == === Refactor the article by providing an outline === 213, you suggest you'd like to refactor this article. Would you like to suggest an outline (have a look at my brief suggestion above) so we can collaborate on such a rewrite (which I've been meaning to do myself but haven't got around to)? BTW, have you considered getting yourself a handle? 213.x.x.x is so impersonal :> --User:Robert Merkel 11:11 Oct 10, 2002 (UTC) === History of AI === I am thinking about (re?)writing a section, the History of AI, reusing some information already present and also introduce more events of interest. It is probably best to break this section out as a separate article I believe. Any ideas? /User:Vidstige 11:50, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC) == Humorous quote in response to von Neumann's == Regarding the von Neumann quote "You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that!" I come to think about a simmilat quote that first appeared in the context of high altitude baloons and later with space probes. "There is only one thing humans can do that instruments can not, but why would anyone want to do that there?". // User:Liftarn == Research into apes' intelligence and implications for AI == Could somebody cite specific interest from AI researchers in ape intelligence? Neural networks were ''originally'' inspired by brain research (though latter neural nets don't resemble the biological model much), and there has been some research into "artificial insect" ideas, but ape cognition doesn't seem to be of sufficient interest to single it out. --User:Robert Merkel 03:33, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC) ==Comment on "neat" and "scruffy" moved from article== The following comment added by an anonymous user, was removed from the article and moved here --User:Lexor 07:26, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC) :The following description of the terms "neat" and "scruffy" is incorrect. See http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=neats%20vs.%20scruffies for a better description. :In brief, the neat/scruffy distinction was created before connectionism, or other numerical AI techniques, were propular. The distinction was between formalists and those that used heuristics. Both of those groups were symbolists. It would not be valid to attempt to apply that old distinction to the current debate between symbolicists and connectionists. :Also the word "evolve" below is used to describe connectionist learning, which is also incorrect usage. Connectionistism and genetic algorithms do have similarities, but this entry will have to be expanded to bring those in. == Mistaken Predictions about AI == '' was titled "A million words of memory" '' In the sixties, an eminent AI research—possibly John McCarthy—said something to the effect that there were no longer any significant theoretical or practical barriers to the achievement of AI except hardware limitations, and that he could demonstrate AI as soon as someone would fund his acquisition of a machine with a million words of memory. This is just fuzzy middle-aged memory and I don't have a citation for it. Does anyone have one? Seems to me this would be worth a mention in the main article if it could be confirmed. The exact wording and context are important, of course. I'm guessing the reference would be to an IBM 709, 7090, or 7094, in which case a million words would correspond to about four-and-a-half megabytes. :-) User:Dpbsmith 16:56, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC) :You have found an eminent AI researcher who made a bold claim about AI which turns out to be false. Is thereby the field of AI discredited? If so then all fields of research are discredited because all of them have suffered outlandish claims. E.g. Linus Pauling won a Nobel Prize for Chemistry and went on to make outlandish claims re Vitamin C. Is Chemistry discredited? No. Shall we insert these ludicrous claims into the Chemistry page? No. Onto the Linus Pauling page? Yes. It is McCarthy (if it were him) who is discredited, not AI. User:Psb777 10:36, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC) :: Hmmm. Interesting point, but don't you think there's merit in a section called "Mistaken Predictions About AI by Reputable Proponents"? It does highlight the point that some people in the field have been over-optimistic about the computing resources (at least, cf Shadows of the Mind and The Emperor's New Mind) required to realise it, and that the workings of the human brain are more difficult to emulate (through difference from conventional computing equipment and developmental processes, and through greater complexity) than has been thought at various times in the past. An exploration of why these mistakes have been made (the confusion caused by the superior calculating capabilities of machines, for instance) would be valuable. Conversely, one could point out that many of the most inaccurate predictions were made some time ago, and that many other mistaken predictions have been made. User:MrJones 20:28, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC) :Artificial Intelligence is an extraordinary field because it questions our presumed special position in the Universe. The Strong AI position in particular many seem to find threatening and it provokes a near-religious opposition. Why should ''this'' article have a "list of failures" when we do not see this in articles which would be much more deserving of it. Even established hard disciplines have had their failures. On the other hand, the last thing that should happen is that the AI failures should be swept under the carpet. Perhaps we should have a section of "Those Successes of AI which were said to be Impossible by Reputable Opponents". Of course, many of these are defined by them (now) as not being "intelligence". User:Psb777 01:18, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC) :: I think that would be closer to the ideal of NPOV. User:MrJones 20:08, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC) == Incorrect definition: AI is not research == This article (currently) starts :Artificial intelligence, commonly abbreviated as AI, also known as machine intelligence, is the practice of developing algorithms that make machines (usually computers) able to make seemingly intelligent decisions, or act as if possessing intelligence of a human scale. No. That's like saying ''evolution'' is the practice of working out how the different species came to exist. I deliberately choose a controversial (in the US at least) topic. ''Evolution'' is thought by some (most!) to be the way that different species have come to exist, it isn't ''the practice of describing how''. Now please do not argue with me about evolution: I was just trying to find a controversial subject to compare with AI. Similarly: AI is ''artifical intelligence'', whether you believe that such a thing is possible or not. It is not some process of trying to make something appear intelligent, however unlikely you thing AI is. Just because you think AI unlikely doesn't mean you can deny what it is (or might be). Another example: ''UFOs'' is not the ''practice'' of faking the photographs. AI, similarly, is not the practice of making something (i.e. artificial) appear intelligent. It is the ''artifical intelligence'' itself, whether you believe in it or not. One or two of the contributors to this article seem to have an axe to grind. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. I am going to re-write that 1st paragraph. User:Psb777 23:54, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC) == Arthur T. Murray == ===Regarding Wikipedia edits by Murray=== Arthur T. Murray, a.k.a. Mentifex, is a notorious crank (person) who has been spamming and mass-mailing his pseudoscientific writings for over thirty years. He is now repeatedly adding to Wikipedia pages inappropriate references to his own work, and repeatedly removing from pages information which presents an opposing point of view to his theories or gives evidence which may cause others to see them in a negative light. For example, he has repeatedly inserted his own name in the "List of Prominent AI Theorists" section of the Artificial intelligence article. As no serious AI researcher considers Murray's work to be anything but crackpottery, please help keep this page and others related to AI free of kookery. Please see the [http://www.nothingisreal.com/mentifex Arthur T. Murray/Mentifex FAQ] for further details on Murray's claims and posting history. This FAQ links to much of Murray's own writing so you can make your own independent assessment of it. —User:Psychonaut 16:18, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC) ===Mentifex article=== I've started up an article stub on Mentifex, although it's very hard to maintain NPOV on something like this. Any additional info or NPOV changes would be greatly appreciated. --User:FleaPlus 19:10, 6 May 2004 (UTC) :FleaPlus, there previously existed articles on Mentifex and Arthur T. Murray, but because this fellow and his program aren't quite encyclopædic material, the articles were deleted after a discussion on Votes for Deletion. No offence, but I'm going to suggest your article for a speedy deletion candidate. User:Psychonaut 09:08, 7 May 2004 (UTC) ::Is Naked and Petrified encyclopedia material? --User:Wikiwikifast 13:43, 7 May 2004 (UTC) While I can understand the deletion, I still think it's useful to be able to look up information on suspected cranks (i.e. Time Cube) to try to get an unbiased description and analysis of their claims. Even if the article I wrote up wasn't NPOV and encyclopedic enough, I hope that someone else would still be able to write one. I personally believe that Mentifex has been around for such a long time and had such an impact on Internet discussions that he deserves an article. --User:NeuronExMachina 10:42, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC) :Kooks can be a big pain to deal with. Are you and the rest of the Wikipedia community going to take responsibility for watching and changing a Mentifex article on a daily basis to prevent Murray from introducing his own bias? That's exactly what he did repeatedly to the previous Mentifex article and, for a time, to the articles on Artificial intelligence and Technological singularity. I'm just trying to make sure you realize that keeping articles on kooks free of vandalism by the kooks themselves can in some cases be more effort than it's worth. I, for one, would rather have no Mentifex article than to have one I'd have to keep changing every day. —User:Psychonaut 12:38, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC) Ok, I see what you mean. I still hope in the future that there might be a Mentifex article, though it would indeed likely need a number of caretakers dedicated to maintaining its NPOV. --User:NeuronExMachina 09:19, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC) Perhaps there needs to be a kookwiki. User:170.35.224.64 15:49, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::"In my view, although Arthur sometimes *presents* his ideas in a somewhat kooky way (by the standards of the mainstream scientific community, and even by the standards of this list), the ideas themselves are significantly better than most of what passes for cognitive science and AI. There is some deep thinking there. If anyone else but me is trying to survey all serious thinking on AGI, Murray's two papers I cited above should be looked at for sure. -- [http://www.sl4.org/archive/0205/3829.html Ben G]. " ===Is the neutrality of this article still disputed?=== It seems to me this article is much improved. That all views are represented. There is a lot to be disputed on this, the Talk page, but the article seems NPOV to me. Can we remove the ''The neutrality of this article is disputed.'' tag now? User:Psb777 10:11, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC) :The NPOV dispute was added by kook Arthur T. Murray (16:59, 3 Feb 2004) because I was removing references he had added to his self-published book. Murray has written other vanity articles on Wikipedia which have since been deleted by the admins. I don't know what the procedure is for removing NPOV dispute tags, but if anyone can do it, then yes, go ahead. AFAICT the only one who believes Murray should be referenced in this article is Murray himself. —User:Psychonaut 10:22, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC) ===Cyberstalker Alert: User Psychonaut (DFKI's Tristan Miller) cyberstalking Mentifex=== The Cyberspace Stalker or Cyberstalker User:Psychonaut of the German_Research_Center_for_Artificial_Intelligence (headed by Wolfgang_Wahlster) has been cyberstalking the Independent_scholar Mentifex from [http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&th=7af3ed87b0b35511 Usenet] onto Wikipedia. Soon after the DFKI employee was [http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&th=7af3ed87b0b35511 rebuked on Usenet] for slandering Mentifex, the outraged Psychonaut went in search of his victim and cyberstalked Mentifex onto Wikipedia -- as shown by the dates of the associated events, such as the DFKI-employee defamation of Mentifex on Usenet and the almost immediately following interference by Psychonaut with Mentifex contributions to Wikipedia. Tristan Miller is not a decent human being. As Psychonaut of DFKI, he tries to smear, with slanderous appellations and outright lies, a Wikipedia participant who seeks not to bias the encyclopedia but to contribute pertinent information. Then other users such as User_talk:Mirv and User_talk:Delirium go lemming-wise along with Mr. DFKI, picking up the firebrand of the cyberstalker witch-hunt and deleting the sincere Mentifex contributions made to Wikipedia. Wikipedia and DFKI are doomed to failure if Tristan Miller (Psychonaut) gets away with his vicious and malicious cyberstalking. Remember, the Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. But what will become of Wikipedia and the DFKI which shelters the vicious and malignant cyberstalker Tristan Miller? --User:66.248.102.111 (presumably Arthur T. Murray) :This is an example of Arthur's typical behavior, and shows that if anyone is prone to "cyberstalking" it is he. --User:172.195.232.182 :Indeed. Murray is incoherent, using wrong and outdated information, and presents a very weak case. Good showing, Psychonaut! -- Anonymous ---- But there is no Mentifex who has "contributed" here. We are having to put up with an Arthur Murray who keeps on trying to foist his drivel on us and Psychonaut is doing an excellent job beating him off. Maybe you have the wrong page? User:Psb777 15:39, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC) :Mentifex is just one of Arthur T. Murray's aliases. Ignore him unless he starts to vandalize pages again. —User:Psychonaut 15:49, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC) ::So I figured. User:Psb777 16:18, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC) ---- To remove AI material without any knowledge of its substance is vandalism. Instead of suppressing new ideas, Wikipaedophiles ought to welcome them. --User:66.248.100.42 (presumably Arthur T. Murray) :If Wikipedia becomes a dumping ground for every kook on the Internet there will be no room for valid content. Arthur T. Murray has a LONG history of self-promoting his "work", which has been reviewed by a number of credible AI people and found to be basically meaningless. Further, Mr. Murray has been claiming to have "solved" AI, which provides and easy kook test: is his AI smart? No, it is just a random sentence generator. The code is open, any decent programmer can review for the same conclusion. --User:172.195.232.182 ::It is extremely bad Karma to interfere with such a Disruptive_technology as the [http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/mind4th.html Mentifex AI design]. Do we want to have a chilling effect upon independent scholarship? ::When the claim is made that [http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/theory5.html AI has been solved], the proper response is to examine the particulars and not to engage in a priori name-calling, which merely shows the Wikipedia:The_dark_side_of_Wikipedia. ::AI4U by Murray, ISBN 0595654371 should be included in the main article on Artificial_intelligence so as potentially to earn money for Wikipedia and so as to enhance the coming User:Jimbo_Wales/Pushing_To_1.0. ::--User:66.248.100.110 (presumably Arthur T. Murray) :I completely agree with Mr. Murray when he says that his material should not be removed by those who have no knowledge of it. I have therefore written a [http://www.nothingisreal.com/mentifex FAQ on Murray] which provides a brief analysis of his theory, his Usenet posting history, and opinions of mainstream researchers on his work. Dozens of references to original material by Murray are provided should you doubt my analysis. If, after reading this FAQ and/or the original sources by Murray, you are convinced of the majority opinion (i.e., that Mentifex is a crackpot theory which has no place in a reference such as Wikipedia), then by all means, help us remove whatever self-aggrandizing information Murray inserts. —User:Psychonaut 16:18, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC) :Shouldn't Wikipedia consider banning Murray somehow, especially references to him inside wikipeia itself? He is a known haunter of many many different discussions on wide ranging topics not related to his crazy ai theories (and lies about his jargon-spewing software). While I agree that just because a person espouses a view not literally taken to be valid doesn't mean that the person's view should be censored, Arthur Murray acts as a stalker. By the way, shouldn't some psychiatrists be investigating him by now?--User:68.95.130.24 02:10, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC) ::I'm amenable to the idea of banning persistent vandals, but since Murray always makes his edits from anonymous IP addresses from a variety of ISPs, this would entail locking out a large number of potential users. As for psychiatric treatment, Murray has mentioned on a number of occasions that his father is a psychiatrist. Perhaps some kind Seattle Wikipedian could try phoning all the Dr. Murrays in the Seattle area until he finds the right man, and beg him to put his son away (or at least on the appropriate antipsychotic medication). —User:Psychonaut 11:19, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC) ----- I apologise for removing the material reinstated by Psychonaut. User:Psb777 14:52, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC) ==Paragraph not understood== ''The second is much harder, raising questions of consciousness and self, mind (including the unconscious mind) and the question of what components are involved in the only type of intelligence it is universally agreed we have available to study: that of human beings. Study of animals and artificial systems that are not just models of what exists already are widely considered very pertinent, too.'' Could someone be so kind to translate the above text to plain English? User:Vidstige 18:15, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC) What don't you understand? "The second" is the quesion "What is intelligence?" Does it make sense now? User:MrJones 20:11, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC) == Massive Confusion on This Page == Is the content of this page really appropriate for its topic? You'd think that the page "Artificial Intelligence" would act as an overview of the field and a gateway to subtopics in AI (which may not exist yet) -- and would be in understandable English. The sections and topics are still badly opinionated, too. The arguments aren't presented in anything resembling order. And what's with the "Electronic wavelet holographic interference" stuff? Maybe this page's problems stem from its position as a major topic page, or it could just be people wiki-stomping on it all the time. Whatever's gone wrong, however, it needs to be fixed. I'm halfway tempted to rewrite the page from scratch, if nobody minds. It's a bloddy mess. * Update: Ok, I got a little hot-headed there. The last guy to edit added a few blatently opinionated things in there about "electronic wavelets" in bad english and inapporpriate areas, and ticked me off. I've removed it, and feel much better now. User:Khaydarian 02:23, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC) I do agree that we need some more coverage of the field, rather than ''only'' the philosophical controversies, which are well-known in the field but generally don't take up much of its time (if only because many of them are basically intractable—"yes computers can be sentient" or "no computers can't be sentient"). In particular, a good overview of the symbolic vs. subsymbolic controversy is a necessary starting place, and then some overviews of various other approaches within the field. I'll try to start adding some when I get some time. --User:Delirium 18:40, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC) ==First sentence== Currently: "Artificial intelligence, also known as machine intelligence, is defined as intelligence exhibited by anything manufactured (i.e. artificial) by humans or other sentient beings or systems (should such things ever exist on Earth or elsewhere)." I propose: "Artificial intelligence, also known as machine intelligence, is defined as intelligence exhibited by anything manufactured (i.e. artificial)." Mention of "other sentient beings" and "Earth or elsewhere" is needlessly speculative and sounds almost kookish. Don't want to tread on toes though. == User:LinkBot/suggestions/Artificial_intelligence == An User:LinkBot has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Artificial_intelligence article, and they have been placed on User:LinkBot/suggestions/Artificial_intelligence for your convenience.
''Tip:'' Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add
Computing Computer science Cognitive science Cybernetics Neuroscience Interdisciplinary fields Futurology th:Category:ปัญญาประดิษฐ์
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Artificial_Intelligence:
Artificial_Intelligence
Artificial_Intelligence
Artificial_intelligence
Artificial_intelligence
Artificial_intelligence
Artificial_Intelligence:_AI
Artificial_Intelligence:_A_Modern_Approach
Artificial_Intelligence:_The_Very_Idea
Artificial_intelligences
Artificial_Intelligence_(AI)
Artificial_intelligence_(AI)
Artificial_Intelligence_(Series)
Artificial_Intelligence_(series)
Artificial_Intelligence_(series)
Artificial_intelligence_agent
Artificial_intelligence_agent
Artificial_intelligence_applications
Artificial_Intelligence_Laboratory_at_the_Massachusetts_Institute_of_Technology
Artificial_Intelligence_Mark-up_Language
Artificial_Intelligence_Markup_Language
Artificial_Intelligence_project
Artificial_intelligence_project
Artificial_intelligence_projects
Artificial_intelligence_researchers
Artificial Intelligence
#REDIRECT Talk:Artificial_intelligence
Artificial Intelligence
#REDIRECT Artificial_intelligence
Artificial intelligence
Artificial intelligence (also known as machine intelligence and often abbreviated as AI) is intelligence (trait) exhibited by any manufactured (i.e. Wiktionary:artificial) system. The term is often applied to general purpose computers and also in the field of scientific investigation into the theory and practical application of AI. Modern AI research is concerned with producing useful machines to automate human tasks requiring intelligient behavior. Examples include scheduling resources such as military units, answering questions about products for customers, understanding and transcribing speech, and recognizing faces in CCTV cameras. As such, it has become an engineering discipline, focused on providing solutions to practical problems. AI methods were used to schedule units in the first Gulf War, and the costs saved by this efficiency have repaid the US government's entire investment in AI research since the 1950s. AI systems are now in routine use in many businesses, hospitals and military units around the world, as well as built into common home computer software such as Microsoft Office and video games. (See Raj Reddy's AAAI paper for a huge review of real-world AI systems in deployment today.) AI methods are often employed in cognitive science research, which explicitly tries to model subsystems of human cognition. (This is in contrast to AI research proper, which seeks to build useful machines, not to model humans.) Historically, AI researchers aimed for the loftier goal of so-called strong AI, of simulating complete, human-like intelligence. This goal is epitomised by the fictional strong AI computer HAL in the film ''2001: A Space Odyssey''. This goal is unlikely to be met in the near future and is no longer the subject of serious AI research. The label "AI" has something of a bad name due to the failure of these early expectations, and aggravation by various popular science writers and media personalities such as Professor Kevin Warwick whose work has raised the expectations of AI research far beyond its current capabilities. For this reason, many AI researchers say they work in cognitive science, informatics, statistical inference or information engineering in an an attempt to distance themselves from such charlatanism. AI has seen many research paradigms, including symbolic, connectionist and Bayesian approaches. There is still no consensus as to the best way to proceed. Recent fashionable research areas include Bayesian Networks and Artificial Life. == Sub-fields of AI research == ===GOFAI - 'Good Old Fashioned AI'=== * State space search * Automated planning * Combinatorial search * Expert system * Knowledge representation * Knowledge-based systems * Qualitative reasoning * Planning and scheduling ===Connectionism=== * Neural network ===Artificial Life and Evolution=== * Artificial life * Distributed artificial intelligence * Genetic programming * Genetic algorithm * Swarm Intelligence * Artificial Being ===Bayesian Methods and Learning=== * Bayesian networks * Machine learning * Pattern Recognition ===Fuzzy Systems=== * Fuzzy Logic ===Scientific Communities=== * Scientific Community Metaphor ==History== === Development of AI theory === Much of the (original) focus of artificial intelligence research draws from an experimental approach to psychology, and emphasizes what may be called linguistic intelligence (best exemplified in the Turing test). Approaches to artificial intelligence that do not focus on linguistic intelligence include robotics and collective intelligence approaches, which focus on active manipulation of an environment, or consensus decision making, and draw from biology and political science when seeking models of how "intelligent" behavior is organized. Artificial intelligence theory also draws from animal studies, in particular with insects, which are easier to emulate as robots (see artificial life), as well as animals with more complex cognition, including apes, who resemble humans in many ways but have less developed capacities for planning and cognition. AI researchers argue that animals, which are simpler than humans, ought to be considerably easier to mimic. But satisfactory computational models for animal intelligence are not available. Seminal papers advancing the concept of machine intelligence include ''A Logical Calculus of the Ideas Immanent in Nervous Activity'' (1943), by Warren McCulloch and Walter Pitts, and ''Computing machinery and intelligence'' (1950), by Alan Turing, and ''Man-Computer Symbiosis'' by J.C.R. Licklider. See cybernetics and Turing test for further discussion. There were also early papers which denied the possibility of machine intelligence on logical or philosophy grounds such as ''Minds, Machines and Gödel'' (1961) by John Lucas [http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jrlucas/Godel/mmg.html]. With the development of practical techniques based on AI research, advocates of AI have argued that opponents of AI have repeatedly changed their position on tasks such as computer chess or speech recognition that were previously regarded as "intelligent" in order to deny the accomplishments of AI. They point out that this moving of the goalposts effectively defines "intelligence" as "whatever humans can do that machines cannot". John von Neumann (quoted by E.T. Jaynes) anticipated this in 1948 by saying, in response to a comment at a lecture that it was impossible for a machine to think: "You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me ''precisely'' what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that!". Von Neumann was presumably alluding to the Church-Turing thesis which states that any effective procedure can be simulated by a (generalized) computer. In 1969 McCarthy and Hayes started the discussion about the frame problem with their essay, "Some Philosophical Problems from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence". === Experimental AI research === Artificial intelligence began as an experimental field in the 1950s with such pioneers as Allen Newell and Herbert Simon, who founded the first artificial intelligence laboratory at Carnegie Mellon University, and John McCarthy and Marvin Minsky, who founded the MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory in 1959. They all attended the aforementioned Dartmouth College summer AI conference in 1956, which was organized by McCarthy, Minsky, Nathan Rochester of International Business Machines and Claude Shannon. Historically, there are two broad styles of AI research - the "neats" and "scruffies". "Neat", ''classical'' or ''symbolic'' AI research, in general, involves symbolic manipulation of abstract concepts, and is the methodology used in most expert systems. Parallel to this are the "scruffy", or "connectionist", approaches, of which artificial neural networks are the best-known example, which try to "evolve" intelligence through building systems and then improving them through some automatic process rather than systematically designing something to complete the task. Both approaches appeared very early in AI history. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s scruffy approaches were pushed to the background, but interest was regained in the 1980s when the limitations of the "neat" approaches of the time became clearer. However, it has become clear that contemporary methods using ''both'' broad approaches have severe limitations. Artificial intelligence research was very heavily funded in the 1980s by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency in the United States and by the fifth generation computer systems project in Japan. The failure of the work funded at the time to produce immediate results, despite the grandiose promises of some AI practitioners, led to correspondingly large cutbacks in funding by government agencies in the late 1980s, leading to a general downturn in activity in the field known as AI winter. Over the following decade, many AI researchers moved into related areas with more modest goals such as machine learning, robotics, and computer vision, though research in pure AI continued at reduced levels. ==Modern AI== Modern AI research focusses on practical engineering tasks. (Supporters of Strong AI may call this approach 'weak AI'.) There are several fields of AI, one of which is natural language. Many weak AI fields have specialised software or programming languages created for them. For example, one of the 'most-human' natural language chatterbots, A.L.I.C.E., uses a programming language AIML that is specific to its program, and the various clones, named Alicebots. Jabberwacky is a little closer to strong AI, since it learns how to converse from the ground up based solely on user interactions. When viewed with a moderate dose of cynicism, AI can be viewed as ‘the set of computer science problems without good solutions at this point’. Once a sub-discipline results in useful work, it is carved out of artificial intelligence and given its own name. Examples of this are pattern recognition, image processing, neural networks, natural language processing, robotics and game theory. While the roots of each of these disciplines is firmly established as having been part of artificial intelligence, they are now thought of as somewhat separate. Whilst progress towards the ultimate goal of human-like intelligence has been slow, many spinoffs have come in the process. Notable examples include the languages Lisp programming language and Prolog, which were invented for AI research but are now used for non-AI tasks. Hacker culture first sprang from AI laboratories, in particular the MIT AI Lab, home at various times to such luminaries as McCarthy, Minsky, Seymour Papert (who developed Logo programming language there), Terry Winograd (who abandoned AI after developing SHRDLU). Many other useful systems have been built using technologies that at least once were active areas of AI research. Some examples include: * Chinook was declared the Man-Machine World Champion in checkers in 1994. * Deep Blue, a chess-playing computer, beat Garry Kasparov in a famous match in 1997. * InfoTame, a text analysis search engine developed by the KGB for automatically sorting millions of pages of communications intercepts. * Fuzzy logic, a technique for reasoning under uncertainty, has been widely used in industrial control systems. * Expert systems are being used to some extent industrially. * Machine translation systems such as SYSTRAN are widely used, although results are not yet comparable with human translators. * Neural networks have been used for a wide variety of tasks, from intrusion detection systems to Creatures. * Optical character recognition systems can translate arbitrary typewritten European script into text. * Handwriting recognition is used in millions of personal digital assistants. * Speech recognition is commercially available and is widely deployed. * Computer algebra systems, such as Mathematica and Macsyma, are commonplace. * Computer vision systems are used in many industrial applications ranging from hardware verification to security cameras . * AI Planning methods were used to automatically plan the deployment of US forces during Gulf War I. This task would have cost months of time and millions of dollars to perform manually, and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency stated that the money saved on this single application was more than their total expenditure on AI research over the last 30 years. The vision of artificial intelligence replacing human professional judgment has arisen many times in the history of the field, and today in some specialized areas where "expert systems" are routinely used to augment or to replace professional judgment in some areas of engineering and of medicine. An example of an expert system is Clippy the paperclip in Microsoft Office which tried to predict what advice the user would like. ==Micro-World AI== The real world is full of distracting and obscuring detail: generally science progresses by focussing on artificially simple models of reality (in physics, frictionless planes and perfectly rigid bodies, for example). In 1970 Marvin Minsky and Seymour Papert, of the MIT AI Laboratory, proposed that AI research should likewise focus on developing programs capable of intelligent behaviour in artificially simple situations known as micro-worlds. Much research has focussed on the so-called blocks world, which consists of coloured blocks of various shapes and sizes arrayed on a flat surface. [http://www.alanturing.net/turing_archive/pages/Reference%20Articles/what_is_AI/What%20is%20AI06.html Micro-World AI] ==Applications== * Natural language processing * Program synthesis * Robotics * Computer vision ==Languages, Programming Style and Software Culture== GOFAI research is often done in Lisp or Prolog. Bayesian work often uses Matlab or Lush (a numerical dialect of Lisp). These languages include many specialist probabalistic libraries. Real-life and especially real-time systems are likely to use C++. AI programmers are often academics and emphasise rapid development and prototyping rather than bulletproof software engineering practices. Hence the use of interpreted languages to empower rapid command-line testing and experimentation. AI culture is historically tied to Unix and hacker cultures, as they share a common birthplace at MIT. The most basic A.I. program is a single Logical conditional, such as "If A, then B." If you type an 'A' letter, the computer will show you a 'B' letter. Basically, you are teaching a computer to do a task. You input one thing, and the computer responds with something you told it to do or say. All programs have If-Then logic. A more complex example is if you type in "Hello.", and the computer responds "How are you today?" This response is not the computer's own thought, but rather a line you wrote into the program before. Whenever you type in "Hello.", the computer always responds "How are you today?". It seems as if the computer is alive and thinking to the casual observer, but actually it is an automated response. A.I. is often a long series of If-Then (or Cause and Effect) statements. A randomizer can be added to this. The randomizer creates two or more response paths. For example, if you type "Hello", the computer may respond with "How are you today?" or "Nice weather" or "Would you like to play a game?" Three responses (or 'thens') are now possible instead of one. There is an equal chance that any one of the three responses will show. This is similar to a pull-cord talking doll that can respond with a number of sayings. A computer A.I. program can have 1,000s of responses to the same input. This makes it less predictable and closer to how a real person would respond, because a living person would respond unpredictably. When 1,000s of input (Ifs) are written in (not just "Hello.") and 1,000s of responses (Thens) written into the A.I. program, then the computer can talk (or type) with most people, if those people know the If statement input lines to type. Many games, like chess and strategy games, use action responses instead of typed responses, so that players can play against the computer. Robots with A.I. brains would use If-Then statements and randomizers to make descisions and speak. However, the input may be a sensed object in front of the robot instead of a "Hello." line, and the response may be to pick up the object instead of a response line. ==AI in the UK== AI research is carried out all over the world. In the UK, the most noted universities are Edinburgh and Sussex although AI research activities can be found in most universities in the country. Since the publication of the Lighthill report UK funding for "AI" dried up, though UK research continues under more politically-acceptable headings such as "Informatics", "Information Engineering" and "Inference". Microsoft runs a large AI research group in Cambridge which works closely with the university. HP labs in Bristol, BT in Ipswich, and various government defence agencies also research AI applications. ==AI in Business== According to Haag, Cummings, etc.(2004) there are four common techniques of Artificial Intelligence used in businesses: *Expert Systems *Neural Networks *Genetic Algorithms *Intelligent Agents Expert Systems apply reasoning capabilities to reach a conclusion. An expert system can process large amounts of known information and provide conclusions based on them. Neural Networks are AI that are capable of finding and differentiating between patterns. Police Departments use neural networks to identify corruption. Genetic Algorithms are designed to apply the survival of the fittest process to generate increasingly better solutions to the problem. Investment brokers use Genetic Algorithms to create the best possible combination of investment opportunities for their clients. An Intelligence Agent is software that assists you, or acts on your behalf, in performing repetitive computer-related tasks. Examples of its uses are data mining programs and monitoring and surveillance agents. Logic programming was sometimes considered a field of artificial intelligence, but this is no longer the case. ==Machines Displaying Some Degree of Intelligence== There are many examples of programs displaying some degree of intelligence. Some of these are: * [http://www.20q.net Twenty Questions] - A neural-net based game of 20 questions * [http://start.csail.mit.edu The Start Project] - a web-based system which answers questions in English. * [http://www.brainboost.com Brainboost] - another question-answering system * Cyc, a knowledge base with vast collection of facts about the real world and logical reasoning ability. * Jabberwacky, a learning chatterbot * ALICE, a chatterbot * [http://www.a-i.com/alan1 Alan], another chatterbot * [http://www.cybermecha.com/Studio Albert One], multi-faceted chatterbot * ELIZA, a program which pretends to be a psychotherapist, developed in 1966 * PAM (Plan Applier Mechanism) - a story understanding system developed by John Wilensky in 1978. * SAM (Script applier mechanism) - a story understanding system, developed in 1975. * SHRDLU - an early natural language understanding computer program developed in 1968-1970. * Creatures, a computer game with breeding, evolving creatures coded from the genetic level upwards using a sophisticated biochemistry and neural network brains. * [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3521852.stm BBC news story] on the creator of ''Creatures'' latest creation. Steve Grand's ''Lucy''. * [http://www.kurzweilcyberart.com/KCATaaron/STAFsample AARON] - artificial intelligence, which creates its own original paintings, developed by Harold Cohen. * Eurisko - a language for solving problems which consists of heuristics, including heuristics for how to use and change its heuristics. Developed in 1978 by Douglas Lenat. * [http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/medical-vision/ X-Ray Vision for Surgeons] - a group in MIT which researches medical vision. * [http://www.jellyfish-ai.com Neural networks-based programs for backgammon and go]. * [http://www.shakespearebot.com Talk to William Shakespeare] - William Shakespeare chatbot == AI Researchers == There are many thousands of AI researchers (see :Category:Artificial intelligence researchers) around the world at hundreds of research institutions and companies. Among the many who have made significant contributions are: * Alan Turing * Boris Katz * Doug Lenat * Douglas Hofstadter * Geoffrey Hinton * John McCarthy (computer scientist) * Karl Sims * Kevin Warwick * Igor Aleksander * Marvin Minsky * Seymour Papert * Maggie Boden * Mike Brady * Oliver Selfridge * Raj Reddy * Judea Pearl * Rodney Brooks * Roger Schank * Terry Winograd == Further reading == === Non-fiction === :See also List of important publications in computer science#Artificial intelligence. * ''Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach'' by Stuart J. Russell and Peter Norvig ISBN 0130803022 * ''Gödel, Escher, Bach : An Eternal Golden Braid'' by Douglas R. Hofstadter * ''Understanding Understanding: Essays on Cybernetics and Cognition'' by Heinz von Foerster * ''In the Image of the Brain: Breaking the Barrier Between Human Mind and Intelligent Machines'' by Jim Jubak * ''Today's Computers, Intelligent Machines and Our Future'' by Hans Moravec, Stanford University * ''The Society of Mind'' by Marvin Minsky, ISBN 0671657135 15 March 1998 * ''Perceptrons: An Introduction to Computational Geometry'' by Marvin Minsky and Seymour Papert ISBN 0262631113 28 December 1987 * ''The Brain Makers: Genius, Ego and Greed In The Quest For Machines That Think'' by HP Newquist ISBN 0672304120. === Sources === * John McCarthy: ''Proposal for the Dartmouth Summer Research Project On Artificial Intelligence''. [http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/dartmouth/dartmouth.html] * John Searle: ''Minds, Brains and Programs'' Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3 (3): 417-457 1980. http://www.bbsonline.org/documents/a/00/00/04/84/bbs00000484-00/bbs.searle2.html == See also == * List of fictional computers * List of fictional robots and androids === Philosophy === * Functionalism (philosophy of mind) * Simulated consciousness * Searle's Chinese room * Consciousness * Scientific Community Metaphor === Logic === * Semantics === Science === * Cognitive science * Computer science * Cybernetics * Psychology * Biosynthetic phylogeny * Scientific Community Metaphor === Applications === * List of Artificial Intelligence projects * Artificial intelligence agent * Bio-inspired computing * Game AI * computer game bot === Uncategorised === * Collective intelligence - the idea that a relatively large number of people co-operating in one process can lead to reliable action. in time of the emergence of smarter-than-human intelligence. * Mindpixel - A project to collect simple true / false assertions and collaboratively validate them with the aim of using them as a body of human common sense knowledge that can be utilised by a machine. * Game_programmer#Artificial_Intelligence_Programmer * truth maintenance systems - by Gerald Jay Sussman and Richard Stallman * K-line (artificial intelligence) * artificial consciousness == External links == === General === * [http://wikibooks.org/wiki/Programming:AI Programming:AI] @ Wikibooks.org * [http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~russell/ai.html University of Berkeley AI Resources] linking to about 869 other WWW pages about AI * [http://www.loebner.net/Prizef/loebner-prize.html Loebner Prize website] * [http://www.jabberwacky.com Jabberwacky - a learning AI chatterbot] * [http://purl.net/net/AIWiki AIWiki] - a wiki devoted to AI. *
Artificial intelligence
==Modern AI== I've modernized this page a bit -- AI has moved on a long way since the sci-fi days of HAL and artificial brains etc. (I'm a doctoral student in AI, I did my MSc in AI too, and it is now a fairly rigorous engineering discipline, which sadly still has a bad name due to its former image.) If you want to discuss silicon brains, androids, etc (which I am indeed a fan of!) please do it on the 'strong AI' page. If you want to discuss modelling humans per se, please do it on the cogsci page. Please don't degrade my profession by assocating it with these things though -- dont get me wrong, I love those ideas (especially the quantum brain hypothesis), and indeed have written bits of their wikipedia entries, but I dont think it does anyone any good to conflate them with professional engineering AI work. Modern AI research is more concerned with identifyign Al Quaida suspects on subway camera images than sittign around in armchairs talking about the nature of mind. ==Missing Topics== Some of the more technical parts of AI are missing such as links to the Rule based languages, fuzzy logic, Rete Algorithm, forward chaining, backward chaining, expert systems, perceptron, neural networks, simulated annealing, etc. My suggestion is to add a subtopic such as "AI Implementation" or "AI Technology" ==Ethical problems== I don't know if you'd agree, but I think the original vision of AI has by now been thoroughly discredited by ethical problems. Creatures that satisfy the original definition of "intelligence", e.g. Great Apes, are not accorded the respect of personhood. Meanwhile, stupid programs of bad research continue to propagate themselves due to funding inertia and influence of top researchers like Minsky, who hvaen't produced anything worth a damn in years. Welcome to tenure, I guess, but the people building robot insects or hooking up humans into cyborg colonies (woops forget to mention Steve Mann under collective intelligence) or talking about augmenting apes witih speech synthesizers just don't believe any of the nonsense that Minsky believed... ::Steve Mann is a moron with cool toys. Minsky, on the other hand, was a visionary. ==Great Apes== Deception is the key difference between humans and Great Apes. Like four year old children, Great Apes do not have a "theory of mind" that enables them to lie *convincingly* by imagining how the other will think things are. Human children acquire this at four and a half or so. Great Apes never do. They lie very badly. The thing called "intelligence" seems to me to be a combination of perception, planning, empathy, cognition and deception. One decides for oneself which to test for, and what to emphasize, and what to extinct. AI is a nonsense goal, just "infinite symbol manipulation" really, some of which symbols are maybe good enough maps to walk over rough terrain in a robot insect, but none of which are good enough to deceive a suspicious adult human. ==Specific nitpicks== Firstly, thanks for the edits. The argument is now much more readable. I still have some serious problems with the article as it stands, however. Firstly, some specific nitpicks: ::good, I'll answer in depth, although we might want to fix cognitive bias first as some of these same issues are mentioned there... relating AI and cogsci is easy enough, relating AI to cognitive *bias* might be harder... may require good articles on culture bias and notation bias first... personally I believe strongly that recognition that "oh, that's intelligent" is a combination of cognitive, culture, and notation bias. That we will give up the word and concept soon when we realize we're engaged in a hate exercise. So, my bias here revealed, here's why I believe that: :Turing also helped author the Church-Turing Thesis, an important advance in the philosophy of mathematics , which seems to imply that adult human linguistic or symbolic intelligence can be no more complex than the process of creating a mathematical proof itself. ::I believe Hofstader and Daniel Dennett claimed that this was one implication of the CTT - that to understand "intelligence" as understood in the Western world we had to understand the process of mathematical proving and discrediting of proofs... as cognitive, social or notational/formal as that may be. This would not be a controversial position w.r.t. proofs and intelligence given other beliefs in the philosophy of mathematics - and the experience of Erdos which seems to prove that mathematics is at least to some degree "a social activity". So the bad word here may be "creating"... it's maybe "discovering", or "inspecting", or "discrediting"... is "creating" a sum of these? Hmm... Modern theorists often reject the assertion that this, or playing chess, is in fact what humans mean when they recognize each other as being concious, wise, or aware. Turing's Test highlights these questions by suggesting that adult humans perhaps assume too much based on mere language - while paradoxically rejecting or ignoring the intelligence of Great Apes, who can master 2000-4000 word vocabularies. Firstly, all the Church-Turing thesis actually says is that anything that can be effectively computed, can be computed on a Turing machine. Many people do draw the implication that anything the brain "computes" can be computed on a Turing machine, so any limitations of a Turing machine are also limitations of the brain. Beyond that, I can't see your contention. Your earlier ::It's the relationship between what mathematicians and scientists understand as "computed" versus what living creatures with bodies walking or swimming around with other bodies in ecologies would say had been successfully decided. Difference between "decided" and "computed" being bodily commitment. Key distinction made by body philosophers back to Wittgenstein. Turing and Wittgenstein talked about this but in terms most people don't seem to understand as being "about this"... comment that "all forms of symbolic or linguistic intelligence as being equivalent to the Turing Machine, which in turn was equivalent to "mathematicians doing proofs in the usual way" isn't directly reflected in the article, and the second part of that comment isn't obvious to me. Could you spell it out for me really slowly and clearly? :I'm best to dig for my Locke, e.g. [http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/Projects/digitexts/locke/understanding/chapter0414.html "...Human Understanding"], "Men often stay not warily to examine the agreement or disagreement of two ideas which they are desirous or concerned to know; but, either incapable of such attention as is requisite in a long train of gradations, or impatient of delay, lightly cast their eyes on, or wholly pass by the proofs; and so, without making out the demonstration, determine of the agreement or disagreement of two ideas, as it were by a view of them as they are at a distance, and take it to be the one or the other, as seems most likely to them upon such a loose survey. This faculty of the mind, when it is exercised immediately about things, is called judgment; when about truths delivered in words, is most commonly called assent or dissent" :I guess if you believe Locke, it's obvious that judgement is involved in the acceptance of the CTT or any mathematical proof of same. Assent or dissent to it by any given mathematician, "delivered in words" or otherwise made clear. So, whose judgement is involved in determining if something is intelligent... in science, largely, the mathematician, or the experimenter, or the *funder* (an underexplored problem only now getting serious attention). So: ::Hmmm. Whilst it doesn't appear to be crucial for your argument, if I'm reading your comment correctly you are misunderstanding the CTT. It is a thesis, not a theorem. It can never be proven. :: "It can never be proven"? Well, perhaps Dennet and Hofstader intended to make it into a theorem. Parallel to what happened in Gaia theory when the Gaia Hypothesis (untestable to any ethical player) evolved into Gaia Theory (proper). It isn't crucial to this argument, but I think a thesis that cannot be proven is not a thesis at all... no falsifiability? :the funding and experimenting decisions we would recognize as guided by some very-hard-to-formalize situational and bodily ethics and constraints... leaving only the mathematician to decide if something is "intelligent" without such obvious constraints... his is the most "neutral point of view". :the fact that they are "the experts" on logic and proofs, and decide if any given evidence has invalidated a thesis via mathematical prediction, makes the community of mathematicians and its collective assent or dissent critical. How do they "commune"? "By doing proofs in the usual way", e.g. the social way of Erdos, the inspirational way of Galois, the instructional way of Euler... "Read Euler, he is the master of us all" - advice to Galois. Secondly, who are "modern theorists", and what is the "this" in the phrase "the assertion that this"? :"this" being "symbolic or linguistic intelligence" of adult (>5 years anyway) humans. The "modern theorists" are sometimes called post-linguists, many are primatologists or others doing field studies with animal subjects, or building insect robots, etc. - basically a mixed bag of people who reject the Turing test, consider Great Apes to be "people" in every moral/emotional sense and are pushing for this legal status (http://personhood.org), *OR* are determined to work only on survival-type intelligence like that of insects... ignoring language as irrelevant. Chomsky sits firmly in the linguistic camp. However Chomsky also thinks Great Apes aren't "intelligent" in the sense of humans, which seems like "whatever computers haven't done yet, and Great Apes can't do" type of human racism. Best known people here? Those concerned with timing in language, like Goffman, Thirdly, whilst it's hardly a peer-reviewed academic journal, [http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/chimps980603.html|this ABC news article] credits chimpanzees with a 240-word vocabulary, an order of magnitude less than the 2000-4000 quoted in the article (a stat that tallies with my own recollection of the topic). Furthermore, from what I remember of my undergraduate psychology studies, signing great apes can't construct actual sentences - the best they can do is possibly construct two-word phrases - "tickle me" and "feed me" being by far the most common :) :seems to be limited to direct-object (mostly two word) verb phrases, [http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1175/6_32/56883557/print.jhtml old studies gave rise to the figure "125"], a more modern [http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/000000005549.htm one lists 150-1000, and is written by anti-personhood experimenters]. Seems to argue equivalent of two year old human child's skills - while the advocates argue that they're more like four year olds. The famous Koko the gorilla had 1000 words in ASL. One group claims that [http://www.orangutans-sos.org/archivenews/archnewsmisc.htm adult orang-utans could master 2000 words] "he already has a 2000-word vocabulary in sign language" and is shifting apparently to satisfy skeptics, bonobos trained from childhood can master 4000, according to the people doing the keyboard work. Can't validate the 4000 - maybe they withdrew it until they can satisfy all the skeptics - or maybe they projected that number based on comparisons of early progress? It does seem to require intensive training to get this far. There seem to be no challengers to Koko's claim to naming and simple direct verb object skills. There is some question whether she can invent words. but not all of this is interesting to AI except insofar as differences between species may eventually tell us much about cognitive skills of the highest order of living creatures closest to us... but ok enough, let's limit claims to the 150-1000 and note the "disputed claims of 2000 or more" arising from sign language. What difference does it make to AI whether chimps, gorillas, dolphins or parrots are "intelligent" or not? It might matter to ethicists, theologans, and psychologists, but to me it seems of little philosophical import to the practice of building systems to solve problems which computers currently don't do very well but which humans (and to a large extent animals) do well, which to me seems to be the practical goal of AI. :to have "artificial intelligence" the naive mind expects you must be able to measure or recognize "intelligence". [http://www.interweave.org/the_guide/guisu98a.htm this is a good summary of non-linguistic "intelligence" that apes share with humans] ::Ah, this is where I disagree with the "naive mind". Consider a machine translation system. Who really cares whether it's intelligent or not, as long as it accurately translates prose from the source to the target language? The definitional arguments are certainly fascinating, but you can do lots of very useful and interesting things without getting caught up in them. :::who is judging "accurately"? Avoiding these arguments is utterly unethical - it leaves the realm of science and enters mere technologies of persuasion to get more funding to do more persuasion... If you submit a message direct from God that is seeming gibberish, and a program translates it as "Vote Green Or Die", that is quite good enough for me... As to your "ethical argument", you're absolutely right - I disagree. Whilst the "personhood" of the great apes is certainly open to debate, it has no relevance to AI research. As to the frankly disappointing research of AI research to date, that is certainly true - AI research haves't achieved nearly as much as many thought it would. However, I don't see that it follows that AI is fundamentally impossible. : some scientists call this a moral hazard, others an opportunity: extinct the culture that wild chimps and gorillas live in, and then you don't have to address their wild intelligence either - you can define intelligence to get grant money for whatever you can convince another human "intelligence" is... while I would say that preserving those cultures to understand intelligence as such is an opportunity, and probably driving the falsifiability disputes. :I think AI "progress" is "disappointing" because it sets up a false goal - deception itself - honest assessments of intelligence would set the Great Apes up as benchmarks and assume that humans are the deluded ones making up criteria for their own prestige (as a species, or as researchers specializing in that criteria). :Finally, AI that doesn't respect nearly-human creatures won't respect us either - it's not like we can patch in a moral code when we notice that it wants to slaughter us all as we are slaughtering apes... has to be part of the foundation ontology to recognize certain empathic common grounds... so this is an extension of the insect-makers' argument that you must solve the problems of getting around, finding food, getting along with others of your kind who find the same food in the same place (and maybe fight over it) before you can look at these absurdly abstract problems like chess or "go"... which are meaningless as tests of anything a living being would care about. ::WRT your discussion of "whether a system should be described as intelligent" or not, you can debate until the cows come home whether something is truly "intelligent", but, for many AI researchers, there is a big shrug of "who cares"? If it does something useful, isn't that significant in itself? ::: useful *TO WHOM*? If I write a program to rationalize absurd corporate structures that loot shareholders blind and still satisfy the auditors, then the significance is not scientific nor "usefulness" in the sense of creating value for living beings with real life concerns. Those AI "researchers" who say "who cares" are simply criminal frauds, whose entire career is an aspiration to be Andersen... the word "persuaders" is far more appropriate for such thugs... ::I'm a living being, and I care about chess :) More seriously, AI researchers lost interest in chess a very long time ago, as it became obvious that brute-force search, a technique basically useless for the more real-world problems, is the most effective method for computer chess. See the discussion I wrote on this topic in the chess article. ::: I once asked a fellow on an elevator "why play chess if machines play it better?" He answered "because the machine can't talk about the game afterwards". It was the best answer ever, and I did not catch his name. I submit that you as a living being care about chess because it distracts from the problems of living... "why do you drink?" - The Little Prince "to forget" - The Tippler "what must you forget?" "that I drink!" ::As to instilling morals in AI systems, that kind of debate is so far ahead of the capabilities of current systems as to be essentially irrelevant at this time. ::: two options: 1. ignore moral concerns and nurturing of nascent intelligences by mothers, wait until they are capable of building their own fusion reactors and extruding their own DNA sequencers. 2. ban all smart-as-primate-or-better AI not raised by a real living primate mother, and work out the problems well in advance. [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biosafety/message/19 Lee Kent suggested this in May 2001] long before AI teleprompting salesmen persuading suicide bombers was in vogue: "I believe the most logical solution is to parent such a machine. Have a 'mother' bond with the machine and vice-versa. It may sound ridiculous to think of it this way but it is the way humans develop and if we wish to protect the machine from a wrong direction in progression then we have to provide an example that means something to it. And anyway its nothing more than a brand manager's job only taking the job very seriously, applying a human perspective to the machine." ::: I submit that The Precautionary Principle argues strongly for Lee's view. ==More generally== OK, there's the nitpicks out of the way. More generally, I find the tone of the article overly negative and somewhat narrow view of AI. There are quite a few alternative definitions of what AI is about, and most workers in the area are focussed on modest tasks and, over :perhaps a comparison chart that sets up "ant, bee, bird, rabbit, lesser ape, great ape, human" degrees of intelligence and uses the [http://www.interweave.org/the_guide/guisu98a.htm criteria here] for non-linguistic intelligence? That seems very non-controversial, although lots of work, and a good balance to the Turing Test arguments (which have the merit of simplicity and honest reflections of how humans deem each other intelligent in conversation]. ::Non-controversial? Gimme a break! In any case, I go back to the question I posed before: this might be all very relevant to a discussion of *intelligence*, but how does it specifically relate to *artificial intelligence*, the topic of this article. ::: because the insect-robot-builders, ape-augmenters, collective-intelligencers, etc, are all different responses/objections to linguistic AI as defined by Turing (perfectly in my view, the Turing Test is an ontological thesis and has cosmology implications if you believe in The Daniel Test... AIs that convince you they are God and end the test by turning you into a suicide bomber to get them more power). the decades, made real progress at them. I intend to add considerably more material on this later, at which point I hope to continue the discussions with you guys :) --user:Robert Merkel :it's all a question of how we structure it, and how we compare ecological, sexual/linguistic, ethical, or moral/restraint levels of intelligence - and also if we think 'evolution is intelligence and intelligence is evolution' as Karl Popper seemed to think... ::Hmmm. Can I just suggest that while the "philosphy of AI" is a topic worthy of extensive discussion, there's much more to the field than that? I think that sums up my biggest objection to the current tone of this article. --user:Robert Merkel ::: "theology of AI" would be better as the concerns tend to be moral, ontological, and cosmological... and have nothing to do with ethics, epistemology, or metaphysics... use the "theology" breakdown when concerned with role of life forms in universe, use the "philosophy" breakdown when concerned with getting tenure. :-) == Removal of assertion (context not given) == Removed from the article: :'', who can master 2000-4000 word vocabularies'' What evidence is there for this? Cites? :: all sign language studies, and the linguists are disputing those into nonexistence by claiming cueing. I think this is the last move by selfish people trying to preserve their provably-worthless non-field (e.g. Chomsky), and that the only linguists worth a damn are looking at polysemy, plus maybe George Lakoff whose theories are replacing Chomsky's as political darlings on both sides of the AI/not fence. He's carved out quite a niche! :You're obviously a big fan of this Lakoff character, but do you really think his theories have had time to be properly assessed by the wider academic community, particularly if they have the cross-disciplinary implications they appear to by what you've said about them? My big problem with some of your references to this stuff is perhaps that you're pushing a line that hasn't been widely (emphasis *widely*) debated yet. --user:Robert Merkel :: Lakoff has been saying the same thing for 20 years to different communities. The review of "the wider academic community" has included so far about 100 gurus, a dozen solid reviews, and several intersting debates. This is worth writing about here. Is there more to say? Yes, but for that you have to join a mailing list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the-embodiment :: and, the reviews do not suggest there is any dispute about his making strong metaphorical bindings between human cognitive science and foundations of mathematics - specifically Euler's Identity. So far I've kept discussion of Lakoff et at in cognitive science of mathematics and not generalized this to cover the great work in statistics bias of the 1960s. But, if pressed, I'll be writing a textbook here... and every single step towards that thesis defies and destructs both the particle physics foundation ontology and artificial intelligence along with Mutual Assured Destruction - all sad delusions from my point of view, but predictable given Descartes' error of assumption re: "Other". ==The goal is== Firstly, the goal of this article, like any other article on Wikipedia, is to present the topic fairly and accurately, and let people draw their own conclusions. When the topic is an academic discipline or school of thought, a fair and accurate presentation includes fair and accurate coverage of the criticisms of such a school of thought, attributed to the people who make them. Given that, we need to: * Define the goals of AI (as there are quite a few definitions, present some of the major ones and compare and contrast). * Discuss the different methodologies used to try and achieve them, with some sense of the progression of AI research. * Present the results of using those methodologies, both applied to the original goals and elsewhere. * Discuss how, clearly, the original goals have not been achieved in their entirety, and some of the speculation as to how the original goals might yet be achieved. * Discuss speculation of what it might mean if those goals *are* achieved. * Discuss the views of the AI skeptics - including people who believe it can't be done with existing methodologies, believe it can't be done, full stop, and people who think it's unethical to do so. I believe an article presenting things in pretty much that order is the way to go. What do you think? ==Church-Turing misunderstood?== ===Unintelligible?=== Yanked from the article: :The philosophy of mathematics asks if adult human linguistic or symbolic intelligence is any more complex than mathematical proof itself, and whether this is in fact what humans mean when they recognize each other as being concious, wise, or aware. Turing's Test highlights these questions by suggesting that adult humans perhaps assume too much based on mere language: Taking the second sentence first, that's a rather novel interpretation of the significance of the Turing Test, to say the least, and one that doesn't really fit with the reading of Turing's original paper IMHO. It might be a more reasonable response to some of the counterarguments raised about the Turing Test (notably the Chinese Room). As to the first sentence, I can't parse it. --user:Robert Merkel ---- Fixed. The "mere language" issue is now illustrated by the apparent "human racism" of the theorists who reject Great Apes' intelligence. It's not that Turing's paper highlighted the issue of what matters in language but rather than Turing's Test itself did - by failing to convince people it was decisive. The first sentence is also fixed, and refers more directly to the CHurch-Turing Thesis, which was the specific contribution, and which defined all forms of symbolic or linguistic intelligence as being equivalent to the Turing Machine, which in turn was equivalent to "mathematicians doing proofs in the usual way" === Incorrect and obscure === I removed the following paragraph: :''The Church-Turing thesis, which demonstrates the undecidability of complex mathematical systems, has been interpreted by some philosophy of mathematics to imply that adult human linguistic or symbolic intelligence can be no more complex than the process of creating a mathematical proof itself. '' # The Church-Turing thesis does not demonstrate the undecidability of anything. It simply says that all "reasonable" definitions of algorithm amount to the same thing, namely to Turing machines. Maybe it was confused with Turing's proof of the undecidability of the Halting problem. # The second half-sentence is unintelligible. I suspect it refers to the work of Penrose, who is not a philosopher of mathematics. His main argument is based on Gödel's incompleteness theorems, and he argues that no machine can ever do everything a human can do. This is an extreme minority position. user:AxelBoldt, Wednesday, April 10, 2002 ==What successes has AI had? == For the benefit of the skeptics among us, wouldn't it be desirable to list some of the outstanding successes of AI so far? (other than beating Kasparov at chess, I'm not sure what those are; and even that I'm not sure counts as genuine AI) --:Seb There are much less such successes than average person would expect. There are some essayes about AI chatbots on http://www.alicebot.org/ (ALICE chatbot won "best chatbot" Loebner prize in 2000 and 2001, so author known what he is talking about), where author says that there was almost no progress in this field of AI since :Eliza. The most important things to notice: * we still don't have machine translation * we still don't have something that can do Turing Test better than Eliza * we still don't have automatic algorithm proving * no "important" math theorem was proved by automatic proving machine * computers almost universally are based on strictly deterministic algorithms, not heuristics --:Taw : "we still don't have machine translation": this is not really an argument. When people say they want to have machine translation, they usually mean "perfect machine translation". This however is unfair, because humans cannot translate perfectly either. I am pretty sure we can get near-perfect machine translation just using statistical methods, but I would not necessarily call that intelligence.--branko == Rewrites of the article == === Refactor the article by providing an outline === 213, you suggest you'd like to refactor this article. Would you like to suggest an outline (have a look at my brief suggestion above) so we can collaborate on such a rewrite (which I've been meaning to do myself but haven't got around to)? BTW, have you considered getting yourself a handle? 213.x.x.x is so impersonal :> --User:Robert Merkel 11:11 Oct 10, 2002 (UTC) === History of AI === I am thinking about (re?)writing a section, the History of AI, reusing some information already present and also introduce more events of interest. It is probably best to break this section out as a separate article I believe. Any ideas? /User:Vidstige 11:50, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC) == Humorous quote in response to von Neumann's == Regarding the von Neumann quote "You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that!" I come to think about a simmilat quote that first appeared in the context of high altitude baloons and later with space probes. "There is only one thing humans can do that instruments can not, but why would anyone want to do that there?". // User:Liftarn == Research into apes' intelligence and implications for AI == Could somebody cite specific interest from AI researchers in ape intelligence? Neural networks were ''originally'' inspired by brain research (though latter neural nets don't resemble the biological model much), and there has been some research into "artificial insect" ideas, but ape cognition doesn't seem to be of sufficient interest to single it out. --User:Robert Merkel 03:33, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC) ==Comment on "neat" and "scruffy" moved from article== The following comment added by an anonymous user, was removed from the article and moved here --User:Lexor 07:26, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC) :The following description of the terms "neat" and "scruffy" is incorrect. See http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=neats%20vs.%20scruffies for a better description. :In brief, the neat/scruffy distinction was created before connectionism, or other numerical AI techniques, were propular. The distinction was between formalists and those that used heuristics. Both of those groups were symbolists. It would not be valid to attempt to apply that old distinction to the current debate between symbolicists and connectionists. :Also the word "evolve" below is used to describe connectionist learning, which is also incorrect usage. Connectionistism and genetic algorithms do have similarities, but this entry will have to be expanded to bring those in. == Mistaken Predictions about AI == '' was titled "A million words of memory" '' In the sixties, an eminent AI research—possibly John McCarthy—said something to the effect that there were no longer any significant theoretical or practical barriers to the achievement of AI except hardware limitations, and that he could demonstrate AI as soon as someone would fund his acquisition of a machine with a million words of memory. This is just fuzzy middle-aged memory and I don't have a citation for it. Does anyone have one? Seems to me this would be worth a mention in the main article if it could be confirmed. The exact wording and context are important, of course. I'm guessing the reference would be to an IBM 709, 7090, or 7094, in which case a million words would correspond to about four-and-a-half megabytes. :-) User:Dpbsmith 16:56, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC) :You have found an eminent AI researcher who made a bold claim about AI which turns out to be false. Is thereby the field of AI discredited? If so then all fields of research are discredited because all of them have suffered outlandish claims. E.g. Linus Pauling won a Nobel Prize for Chemistry and went on to make outlandish claims re Vitamin C. Is Chemistry discredited? No. Shall we insert these ludicrous claims into the Chemistry page? No. Onto the Linus Pauling page? Yes. It is McCarthy (if it were him) who is discredited, not AI. User:Psb777 10:36, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC) :: Hmmm. Interesting point, but don't you think there's merit in a section called "Mistaken Predictions About AI by Reputable Proponents"? It does highlight the point that some people in the field have been over-optimistic about the computing resources (at least, cf Shadows of the Mind and The Emperor's New Mind) required to realise it, and that the workings of the human brain are more difficult to emulate (through difference from conventional computing equipment and developmental processes, and through greater complexity) than has been thought at various times in the past. An exploration of why these mistakes have been made (the confusion caused by the superior calculating capabilities of machines, for instance) would be valuable. Conversely, one could point out that many of the most inaccurate predictions were made some time ago, and that many other mistaken predictions have been made. User:MrJones 20:28, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC) :Artificial Intelligence is an extraordinary field because it questions our presumed special position in the Universe. The Strong AI position in particular many seem to find threatening and it provokes a near-religious opposition. Why should ''this'' article have a "list of failures" when we do not see this in articles which would be much more deserving of it. Even established hard disciplines have had their failures. On the other hand, the last thing that should happen is that the AI failures should be swept under the carpet. Perhaps we should have a section of "Those Successes of AI which were said to be Impossible by Reputable Opponents". Of course, many of these are defined by them (now) as not being "intelligence". User:Psb777 01:18, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC) :: I think that would be closer to the ideal of NPOV. User:MrJones 20:08, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC) == Incorrect definition: AI is not research == This article (currently) starts :Artificial intelligence, commonly abbreviated as AI, also known as machine intelligence, is the practice of developing algorithms that make machines (usually computers) able to make seemingly intelligent decisions, or act as if possessing intelligence of a human scale. No. That's like saying ''evolution'' is the practice of working out how the different species came to exist. I deliberately choose a controversial (in the US at least) topic. ''Evolution'' is thought by some (most!) to be the way that different species have come to exist, it isn't ''the practice of describing how''. Now please do not argue with me about evolution: I was just trying to find a controversial subject to compare with AI. Similarly: AI is ''artifical intelligence'', whether you believe that such a thing is possible or not. It is not some process of trying to make something appear intelligent, however unlikely you thing AI is. Just because you think AI unlikely doesn't mean you can deny what it is (or might be). Another example: ''UFOs'' is not the ''practice'' of faking the photographs. AI, similarly, is not the practice of making something (i.e. artificial) appear intelligent. It is the ''artifical intelligence'' itself, whether you believe in it or not. One or two of the contributors to this article seem to have an axe to grind. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. I am going to re-write that 1st paragraph. User:Psb777 23:54, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC) == Arthur T. Murray == ===Regarding Wikipedia edits by Murray=== Arthur T. Murray, a.k.a. Mentifex, is a notorious crank (person) who has been spamming and mass-mailing his pseudoscientific writings for over thirty years. He is now repeatedly adding to Wikipedia pages inappropriate references to his own work, and repeatedly removing from pages information which presents an opposing point of view to his theories or gives evidence which may cause others to see them in a negative light. For example, he has repeatedly inserted his own name in the "List of Prominent AI Theorists" section of the Artificial intelligence article. As no serious AI researcher considers Murray's work to be anything but crackpottery, please help keep this page and others related to AI free of kookery. Please see the [http://www.nothingisreal.com/mentifex Arthur T. Murray/Mentifex FAQ] for further details on Murray's claims and posting history. This FAQ links to much of Murray's own writing so you can make your own independent assessment of it. —User:Psychonaut 16:18, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC) ===Mentifex article=== I've started up an article stub on Mentifex, although it's very hard to maintain NPOV on something like this. Any additional info or NPOV changes would be greatly appreciated. --User:FleaPlus 19:10, 6 May 2004 (UTC) :FleaPlus, there previously existed articles on Mentifex and Arthur T. Murray, but because this fellow and his program aren't quite encyclopædic material, the articles were deleted after a discussion on Votes for Deletion. No offence, but I'm going to suggest your article for a speedy deletion candidate. User:Psychonaut 09:08, 7 May 2004 (UTC) ::Is Naked and Petrified encyclopedia material? --User:Wikiwikifast 13:43, 7 May 2004 (UTC) While I can understand the deletion, I still think it's useful to be able to look up information on suspected cranks (i.e. Time Cube) to try to get an unbiased description and analysis of their claims. Even if the article I wrote up wasn't NPOV and encyclopedic enough, I hope that someone else would still be able to write one. I personally believe that Mentifex has been around for such a long time and had such an impact on Internet discussions that he deserves an article. --User:NeuronExMachina 10:42, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC) :Kooks can be a big pain to deal with. Are you and the rest of the Wikipedia community going to take responsibility for watching and changing a Mentifex article on a daily basis to prevent Murray from introducing his own bias? That's exactly what he did repeatedly to the previous Mentifex article and, for a time, to the articles on Artificial intelligence and Technological singularity. I'm just trying to make sure you realize that keeping articles on kooks free of vandalism by the kooks themselves can in some cases be more effort than it's worth. I, for one, would rather have no Mentifex article than to have one I'd have to keep changing every day. —User:Psychonaut 12:38, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC) Ok, I see what you mean. I still hope in the future that there might be a Mentifex article, though it would indeed likely need a number of caretakers dedicated to maintaining its NPOV. --User:NeuronExMachina 09:19, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC) Perhaps there needs to be a kookwiki. User:170.35.224.64 15:49, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::"In my view, although Arthur sometimes *presents* his ideas in a somewhat kooky way (by the standards of the mainstream scientific community, and even by the standards of this list), the ideas themselves are significantly better than most of what passes for cognitive science and AI. There is some deep thinking there. If anyone else but me is trying to survey all serious thinking on AGI, Murray's two papers I cited above should be looked at for sure. -- [http://www.sl4.org/archive/0205/3829.html Ben G]. " ===Is the neutrality of this article still disputed?=== It seems to me this article is much improved. That all views are represented. There is a lot to be disputed on this, the Talk page, but the article seems NPOV to me. Can we remove the ''The neutrality of this article is disputed.'' tag now? User:Psb777 10:11, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC) :The NPOV dispute was added by kook Arthur T. Murray (16:59, 3 Feb 2004) because I was removing references he had added to his self-published book. Murray has written other vanity articles on Wikipedia which have since been deleted by the admins. I don't know what the procedure is for removing NPOV dispute tags, but if anyone can do it, then yes, go ahead. AFAICT the only one who believes Murray should be referenced in this article is Murray himself. —User:Psychonaut 10:22, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC) ===Cyberstalker Alert: User Psychonaut (DFKI's Tristan Miller) cyberstalking Mentifex=== The Cyberspace Stalker or Cyberstalker User:Psychonaut of the German_Research_Center_for_Artificial_Intelligence (headed by Wolfgang_Wahlster) has been cyberstalking the Independent_scholar Mentifex from [http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&th=7af3ed87b0b35511 Usenet] onto Wikipedia. Soon after the DFKI employee was [http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&th=7af3ed87b0b35511 rebuked on Usenet] for slandering Mentifex, the outraged Psychonaut went in search of his victim and cyberstalked Mentifex onto Wikipedia -- as shown by the dates of the associated events, such as the DFKI-employee defamation of Mentifex on Usenet and the almost immediately following interference by Psychonaut with Mentifex contributions to Wikipedia. Tristan Miller is not a decent human being. As Psychonaut of DFKI, he tries to smear, with slanderous appellations and outright lies, a Wikipedia participant who seeks not to bias the encyclopedia but to contribute pertinent information. Then other users such as User_talk:Mirv and User_talk:Delirium go lemming-wise along with Mr. DFKI, picking up the firebrand of the cyberstalker witch-hunt and deleting the sincere Mentifex contributions made to Wikipedia. Wikipedia and DFKI are doomed to failure if Tristan Miller (Psychonaut) gets away with his vicious and malicious cyberstalking. Remember, the Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. But what will become of Wikipedia and the DFKI which shelters the vicious and malignant cyberstalker Tristan Miller? --User:66.248.102.111 (presumably Arthur T. Murray) :This is an example of Arthur's typical behavior, and shows that if anyone is prone to "cyberstalking" it is he. --User:172.195.232.182 :Indeed. Murray is incoherent, using wrong and outdated information, and presents a very weak case. Good showing, Psychonaut! -- Anonymous ---- But there is no Mentifex who has "contributed" here. We are having to put up with an Arthur Murray who keeps on trying to foist his drivel on us and Psychonaut is doing an excellent job beating him off. Maybe you have the wrong page? User:Psb777 15:39, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC) :Mentifex is just one of Arthur T. Murray's aliases. Ignore him unless he starts to vandalize pages again. —User:Psychonaut 15:49, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC) ::So I figured. User:Psb777 16:18, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC) ---- To remove AI material without any knowledge of its substance is vandalism. Instead of suppressing new ideas, Wikipaedophiles ought to welcome them. --User:66.248.100.42 (presumably Arthur T. Murray) :If Wikipedia becomes a dumping ground for every kook on the Internet there will be no room for valid content. Arthur T. Murray has a LONG history of self-promoting his "work", which has been reviewed by a number of credible AI people and found to be basically meaningless. Further, Mr. Murray has been claiming to have "solved" AI, which provides and easy kook test: is his AI smart? No, it is just a random sentence generator. The code is open, any decent programmer can review for the same conclusion. --User:172.195.232.182 ::It is extremely bad Karma to interfere with such a Disruptive_technology as the [http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/mind4th.html Mentifex AI design]. Do we want to have a chilling effect upon independent scholarship? ::When the claim is made that [http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/theory5.html AI has been solved], the proper response is to examine the particulars and not to engage in a priori name-calling, which merely shows the Wikipedia:The_dark_side_of_Wikipedia. ::AI4U by Murray, ISBN 0595654371 should be included in the main article on Artificial_intelligence so as potentially to earn money for Wikipedia and so as to enhance the coming User:Jimbo_Wales/Pushing_To_1.0. ::--User:66.248.100.110 (presumably Arthur T. Murray) :I completely agree with Mr. Murray when he says that his material should not be removed by those who have no knowledge of it. I have therefore written a [http://www.nothingisreal.com/mentifex FAQ on Murray] which provides a brief analysis of his theory, his Usenet posting history, and opinions of mainstream researchers on his work. Dozens of references to original material by Murray are provided should you doubt my analysis. If, after reading this FAQ and/or the original sources by Murray, you are convinced of the majority opinion (i.e., that Mentifex is a crackpot theory which has no place in a reference such as Wikipedia), then by all means, help us remove whatever self-aggrandizing information Murray inserts. —User:Psychonaut 16:18, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC) :Shouldn't Wikipedia consider banning Murray somehow, especially references to him inside wikipeia itself? He is a known haunter of many many different discussions on wide ranging topics not related to his crazy ai theories (and lies about his jargon-spewing software). While I agree that just because a person espouses a view not literally taken to be valid doesn't mean that the person's view should be censored, Arthur Murray acts as a stalker. By the way, shouldn't some psychiatrists be investigating him by now?--User:68.95.130.24 02:10, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC) ::I'm amenable to the idea of banning persistent vandals, but since Murray always makes his edits from anonymous IP addresses from a variety of ISPs, this would entail locking out a large number of potential users. As for psychiatric treatment, Murray has mentioned on a number of occasions that his father is a psychiatrist. Perhaps some kind Seattle Wikipedian could try phoning all the Dr. Murrays in the Seattle area until he finds the right man, and beg him to put his son away (or at least on the appropriate antipsychotic medication). —User:Psychonaut 11:19, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC) ----- I apologise for removing the material reinstated by Psychonaut. User:Psb777 14:52, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC) ==Paragraph not understood== ''The second is much harder, raising questions of consciousness and self, mind (including the unconscious mind) and the question of what components are involved in the only type of intelligence it is universally agreed we have available to study: that of human beings. Study of animals and artificial systems that are not just models of what exists already are widely considered very pertinent, too.'' Could someone be so kind to translate the above text to plain English? User:Vidstige 18:15, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC) What don't you understand? "The second" is the quesion "What is intelligence?" Does it make sense now? User:MrJones 20:11, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC) == Massive Confusion on This Page == Is the content of this page really appropriate for its topic? You'd think that the page "Artificial Intelligence" would act as an overview of the field and a gateway to subtopics in AI (which may not exist yet) -- and would be in understandable English. The sections and topics are still badly opinionated, too. The arguments aren't presented in anything resembling order. And what's with the "Electronic wavelet holographic interference" stuff? Maybe this page's problems stem from its position as a major topic page, or it could just be people wiki-stomping on it all the time. Whatever's gone wrong, however, it needs to be fixed. I'm halfway tempted to rewrite the page from scratch, if nobody minds. It's a bloddy mess. * Update: Ok, I got a little hot-headed there. The last guy to edit added a few blatently opinionated things in there about "electronic wavelets" in bad english and inapporpriate areas, and ticked me off. I've removed it, and feel much better now. User:Khaydarian 02:23, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC) I do agree that we need some more coverage of the field, rather than ''only'' the philosophical controversies, which are well-known in the field but generally don't take up much of its time (if only because many of them are basically intractable—"yes computers can be sentient" or "no computers can't be sentient"). In particular, a good overview of the symbolic vs. subsymbolic controversy is a necessary starting place, and then some overviews of various other approaches within the field. I'll try to start adding some when I get some time. --User:Delirium 18:40, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC) ==First sentence== Currently: "Artificial intelligence, also known as machine intelligence, is defined as intelligence exhibited by anything manufactured (i.e. artificial) by humans or other sentient beings or systems (should such things ever exist on Earth or elsewhere)." I propose: "Artificial intelligence, also known as machine intelligence, is defined as intelligence exhibited by anything manufactured (i.e. artificial)." Mention of "other sentient beings" and "Earth or elsewhere" is needlessly speculative and sounds almost kookish. Don't want to tread on toes though. == User:LinkBot/suggestions/Artificial_intelligence == An User:LinkBot has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Artificial_intelligence article, and they have been placed on User:LinkBot/suggestions/Artificial_intelligence for your convenience.
''Tip:'' Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add
Artificial intelligence
Computing Computer science Cognitive science Cybernetics Neuroscience Interdisciplinary fields Futurology th:Category:ปัญญาประดิษฐ์
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
A
AB | AC | AD | AE | AF | AG | AH | AI | AJ | AK | AL | AM | AN | AO | AP | AR | AS | AT | AU | AW | AX | AY | AZ |Words begining with Artificial_Intelligence:
Artificial_Intelligence
Artificial_Intelligence
Artificial_intelligence
Artificial_intelligence
Artificial_intelligence
Artificial_Intelligence:_AI
Artificial_Intelligence:_A_Modern_Approach
Artificial_Intelligence:_The_Very_Idea
Artificial_intelligences
Artificial_Intelligence_(AI)
Artificial_intelligence_(AI)
Artificial_Intelligence_(Series)
Artificial_Intelligence_(series)
Artificial_Intelligence_(series)
Artificial_intelligence_agent
Artificial_intelligence_agent
Artificial_intelligence_applications
Artificial_Intelligence_Laboratory_at_the_Massachusetts_Institute_of_Technology
Artificial_Intelligence_Mark-up_Language
Artificial_Intelligence_Markup_Language
Artificial_Intelligence_project
Artificial_intelligence_project
Artificial_intelligence_projects
Artificial_intelligence_researchers
Sponsored links: praca.
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
