3 ms·

I like the definition you provide: "the simulation of human intelligence processes by machines" It would, of course, allow AI to exist that predates the invent

• gillesjacobs 5y ago
  What is considered AI is definitely on a constantly changing continuum. Take for instance the calculator, when introduced it eliminated the need for a team of human calculators who for difficult computations manually cross-checked each step. Some attributed the first commercially available mechanical calculator with human-like intelligence. Over time, such tools become so wide-spread that it is considered an affront to compare it to human intelligence. So now, we don't see calculators and autopilots as AI.
  • dr_dshiv 5y ago
    In your definition (which I like), AI is based on intent to simulate rather than perception. I agree that what is popularly considered AI is a moving goal-post — many don't see machine learning as AI either — e.g., it's just statistics. The term AI is very vague and misleading. It implicitly suggests a kind of magic. A lot of people believe in the magic, intended or not. I don't think this paper would be an issue at all if it was referring to a new foundation for GANs or transformers or deep learning — or anything more specific.
• teddyh 5y ago
  One could also quite reasonably ask what qualifies as a machine. Does an abacus count? Does pen and paper count?
  • sgt101 5y ago
    I think that's a foundational question! Does the sun count or the earth? Or people?