4 ms·
Agreed, FI -for fake intelligence- would be more accurate :)
by lottin 10y ago
Agreed, FI -for fake intelligence- would be more accurate :)
- nostrademons 10y agoI think AI is accurate, but it's actually short for "aggregated intelligence". Most AI algorithms can't actually generate "intelligence" as we know it. Rather, they aggregate the intelligence of the humans who contributed to their training data, and then generalize it to situations where those humans are not present. If the humans are stupid (as we saw with Microsoft's Tay chatbot), the AI is going to be pretty stupid as well. If the humans are racist, the AI is going to be racist as well.
- SCHiM 10y agoExpert systems (which is what you're describing) are generally considered to belong in the AI category.
- nostrademons 10y agoNot just expert systems: any supervised learning system also fits into this category (including neural nets), as do Markov chains, collaborative filtering, Bayesian inference, anything that involves counting actions that humans take.
- visarga 10y ago> Most AI AlphaGo would be an example. It was trained by self play.
- nostrademons 10y agoBootstrapped by supervised learning though: it was trained with the results of 30 million human games before the reinforcement learning kicked in.
- visarga 10y agoMaybe we're "fake intelligences" too. Just a bunch of proteins and water, performing chemical reactions.