2 ms·
> No. That is just some model of AI. Finding patterns in data without being told explicitly what to look for is the hallmark of AI. Anything that doesn't do th
by jjk166 4y ago
> No. That is just some model of AI.
Finding patterns in data without being told explicitly what to look for is the hallmark of AI. Anything that doesn't do that isn't AI.
> I am pretty sure we had applications in the '50s.
For a different definition of applications than the one I was clearly using, yes.
> And we would like to know them, for many reasons. Because in some cases what we are looking for is the full solution as opposed to the conclusion; because we do not just trust advice blindly; because it is productive in the very engineering effort...
And I would like my car not to crash, but that's not the point of a seatbelt. Of course it would be wonderful if we understood everything, but we don't, and so we have created a tool to let us overcome that limitation.
- mdp2021 4y ago> Finding patterns in data without being told explicitly No, really, it isn't. "Automation of solutions" is not equivalent to "pattern recognition". A first factual example that comes to mind are "Expert Systems", which appear far from your idea of AI like something in another continent: please, as already invited, re-check the history of AI. > that's not the point of a seatbelt Whereas instead, realiability of solutions and "scientific" progress can be exactly the point of some applications, or a fundamental parallel activity in the enterprise that develops them.