4 ms·

I think I'd define "classical" AI as any system where, rather that putting in an explicit algorithm, you give the computer a goal and have it "figure out" how t

by gwd 10mo ago

I think I'd define "classical" AI as any system where, rather that putting in an explicit algorithm, you give the computer a goal and have it "figure out" how to achieve that goal. By that definition, SQL query planners, compiler optimizers, Google Maps routing algorithms, chess playing algorithms, and so on were all "AI". (In fact, I'm pretty sure SQLite's website refers to their query planner as an "AI" somewhere; by classical definitions this is correct.) But does an SQL query planner "understand" databases? Does Stockfish "understand" chess? Does Google Maps "understand" roads? I doubt even most AI proponents would say "yes". The computer does the searching and evaluation, but the models and evaluation functions are developed by humans, and stripped down to their bare essentials.

IanCal 10mo ago
RMS might say yes, here's from the linked page describing other things as having knowledge and understanding: > There are systems which use machine learning to recognize specific important patterns in data. Their output can reflect real knowledge (even if not with perfect accuracy)—for instance, whether an image of tissue from an organism shows a certain medical condition, whether an insect is a bee-eating Asian hornet, whether a toddler may be at risk of becoming autistic, or how well a certain art work matches some artist's style and habits. Scientists validate the system by comparing its judgment against experimental tests. That justifies referring to these systems as “artificial intelligence.”
- gwd 10mo ago
  Thanks -- that's not at all clear in this post (nor is it clear from the link text that its target would include a more complete description of his position). I've updated my comment in response to this. Basically: It seems his key test is "Is someone validating the output, trying to steer it towards ground truth?" And since the answer re ChatGPT and Claude is clearly "yes", then ChatGPT clearly does count as an AI with semantic understanding, by his definition.

by gwd 10mo ago

IanCal 10mo ago

RMS might say yes, here's from the linked page describing other things as having knowledge and understanding: > There are systems which use machine learning to recognize specific important patterns in data. Their output can reflect real knowledge (even if not with perfect accuracy)—for instance, whether an image of tissue from an organism shows a certain medical condition, whether an insect is a bee-eating Asian hornet, whether a toddler may be at risk of becoming autistic, or how well a certain art work matches some artist's style and habits. Scientists validate the system by comparing its judgment against experimental tests. That justifies referring to these systems as “artificial intelligence.”

gwd 10mo ago
Thanks -- that's not at all clear in this post (nor is it clear from the link text that its target would include a more complete description of his position). I've updated my comment in response to this. Basically: It seems his key test is "Is someone validating the output, trying to steer it towards ground truth?" And since the answer re ChatGPT and Claude is clearly "yes", then ChatGPT clearly does count as an AI with semantic understanding, by his definition.