3 ms·

> There isn't any AI either. It's machine learning, i.e., statistical models and algorithms. I always thaught those were synonyms.

by zaik 5y ago

xcambar 5y ago
Both the A and the I in AI are debatable terms. The sole definition of intelligence is under heavy load of reconsideration the last decades with the emergence of a better knowledge of animal cognition, for example.
- kortex 5y ago
  Why is the A[rtificial] under debate? It's not natural (biological) intelligence, unless one goes the route "humans are a part of nature therefore the things we make like plastic and skyscrapers and hamburgers are natural".
  - xcambar 5y ago
    It needs to be wondered whether drawing a face or winning a game of go may or may not actually be real intelligence, only very narrow. We like to think that AI is only statistical models, which may be true (is true?), but we have no idea that what happens in brains is anything else than a highly optimised, deconstructed, such model. Current datasets need 10ks pics of a cat while a kid only need to see a cat twice? Good for the kid, but there's no hint there's a fundamental difference of process.
isaacimagine 5y ago
There isn't any I either. It's biological learning, i.e. neuronal models and feedback loops. /s?
Gigachad 5y ago
Purists seem to define AI as anything that is currently too hard for computers. Wasn't long ago that chess engines with no neural networks or machine learning were being called AIs.
bmitc 5y ago
AI has been co-opted as a synonym for machine learning, if only for marketing purposes. Machine learning existed for decades before it was "renamed" as AI. I just don't see anything intelligent yet. People somehow have gotten confused with the success of machine learning being treated as intelligence. We have a lot of statistical models of things that are very successful, but those aren't considered intelligent. For reason, machine learning telling you something about data has suddenly been treated as AI. Machine learning can do some impressive things, but I think its short-sighted to equate AI and machine learning. Intelligence is really a tough thing. Watching a video of even a single-cell organism displays a sort of intelligence and behavior far beyond anything I've seen of machine learning. So why is it intelligent? Or is it intelligent? I'm not entirely sure, but my point is that machine learning is orders of magnitude incapable of describing (i.e., modeling) even the simplest self-directed and self-adapting behavior that we see in the real world.

> There isn't any AI either. It's machine learning, i.e., statistical models and algorithms. I always thaught those were synonyms.

by zaik 5y ago

> There isn't any AI either. It's machine learning, i.e., statistical models and algorithms. I always thaught those were synonyms.

xcambar 5y ago

Both the A and the I in AI are debatable terms. The sole definition of intelligence is under heavy load of reconsideration the last decades with the emergence of a better knowledge of animal cognition, for example.

kortex 5y ago
Why is the A[rtificial] under debate? It's not natural (biological) intelligence, unless one goes the route "humans are a part of nature therefore the things we make like plastic and skyscrapers and hamburgers are natural".
- xcambar 5y ago
  It needs to be wondered whether drawing a face or winning a game of go may or may not actually be real intelligence, only very narrow. We like to think that AI is only statistical models, which may be true (is true?), but we have no idea that what happens in brains is anything else than a highly optimised, deconstructed, such model. Current datasets need 10ks pics of a cat while a kid only need to see a cat twice? Good for the kid, but there's no hint there's a fundamental difference of process.

isaacimagine 5y ago

There isn't any I either. It's biological learning, i.e. neuronal models and feedback loops. /s?

Gigachad 5y ago

Purists seem to define AI as anything that is currently too hard for computers. Wasn't long ago that chess engines with no neural networks or machine learning were being called AIs.

bmitc 5y ago

AI has been co-opted as a synonym for machine learning, if only for marketing purposes. Machine learning existed for decades before it was "renamed" as AI. I just don't see anything intelligent yet. People somehow have gotten confused with the success of machine learning being treated as intelligence. We have a lot of statistical models of things that are very successful, but those aren't considered intelligent. For reason, machine learning telling you something about data has suddenly been treated as AI. Machine learning can do some impressive things, but I think its short-sighted to equate AI and machine learning. Intelligence is really a tough thing. Watching a video of even a single-cell organism displays a sort of intelligence and behavior far beyond anything I've seen of machine learning. So why is it intelligent? Or is it intelligent? I'm not entirely sure, but my point is that machine learning is orders of magnitude incapable of describing (i.e., modeling) even the simplest self-directed and self-adapting behavior that we see in the real world.