|
|
fgs1963 wrote: The potential of AI is undeniably profound.
True. As was recognized at least in the 1950s.
However "AI" as it is currently used is a marketing term. It has no real comparison to what was intended by the phrase "Artificial Intelligence" as it was used up to the point in the early 2000s.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: However "AI" as it is currently used is a marketing term.
True, at least 98.796% of the time (IMHO). But... there are some highly funded groups working on the real deal. Combine that with the "potential" of quantum computing and we may be on the cusp of a societal sea change.
|
|
|
|
|
fgs1963 wrote: there are some highly funded groups working on the real deal
All of that has been true since the 1960s though.
|
|
|
|
|
There are orders of magnitude more software developers today than the 60s. There are orders of magnitude more money being committed to AI development today than the 60s. Average people carry vastly more computer power around in their pockets than existed (globally) in the 60s. Massive troves of digitized data sets exist today that didn't exist in the 60s. There is huge bandwidth available today that lets groups around the globe collaborate in real time that didn't exist in the 60s.
Lets not compare software development of the past to software development today... it is farcical.
|
|
|
|
|
"A million monkeys and a million typewriters" ... is what it is.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe, but they still wrote Shakespeare.
|
|
|
|
|
fgs1963 wrote: There are orders of magnitude more software developers today than the 60s. There are orders of magnitude more money being committed to AI development today than the 60s.
I believe that there is far more money and resources being used to search for Extraterrestrials too.
fgs1963 wrote: Lets not compare software development of the past to software development today... it is farcical
And yet there is still nothing even close to the actual meaning of Artificial Intelligence.
Perhaps far more claims that it is the same though.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: And yet there is still nothing even close to the actual meaning of Artificial Intelligence.
How do you possibly know what is or isn't being done in the R&D labs at IBM, Microsoft, Google, Apple, Oracle, etc...? How do you possibly know what is or isn't being done in classified government research labs in the US, UK, China, Russia, etc...?
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, you are right: If you really want something to be true, and there is no evidence of it, you can claim that it still is true somewhere behind closed doors. Then it probably is true. At least for you.
|
|
|
|
|
Nice strawman but it applies equally well to AI luddites who claim to know the status of 100's of projects that they are not a part of (or even qualified to be a part of).
I'm truly shocked by how backward thinking so many "software developers" here at CP are. The incessant whining about the state of AI is sad.
|
|
|
|
|
One reason may be that after having been in the trade for 40+ years, you have seen so many revolutions dying out that it becomes a habit to shrug: Well, let's see what comes out of it.
It is not quite "If you have seen one hype, you have seen them all", but as you grow older, it gradually becomes closer to that. Say, my first encounter with Eliza[^], the computer therapist, was in 1975. I was truly impressed then, and I got hold of the roughly 200 lines of SNOBOL code: Then I was impressed by how such a small program, with such primitive logic, could present such a convincing interface. (Note that for tasks such as these, SNOBOL is quite different from, say, C class languages - even those with OO, templates and stuff  .)
Actually, ChatGPT is doing the same thing: It puts together text fragments it knows (or "have been trained by", as we say today) to match your input. That 200 lines of SNOBOL had all the text fragments built into the program code itself, so to call it "limited" is an understatement. It didn't take long before new Eliza versions addressed huge information bases. In my student days, a few year later (I was in high school at my first encounter with Eliza), we played with a version claiming to be able to discuss in 30,000 different areas. I remember in particular those caring for vintage cars and those collecting stamps being impressed by its knowledge.
Then we had "The Fifth Generation" project, with Prolog programming that would give us true intelligence. Prolog never caught on - maybe for a few years in Japan, where 5th Gen was really pushed. The whole thing faded into "Knowledge based systems", which was a hype for a few years. Go back a few years from today, when the hype was "Big Data". Aside from the Eliza-like I/O language generating, what is the current AI beyond searching Big Data?
OK, maybe they have developed a few new search techniques. "Knowledge based systems" did. A few years after the hype, they were taught at college level as standard search techniques - nothing particularly "knowledge" about them. My first Databases course at the U taught us CODASYL network database structures; we were reading Date as a "conceptual" data model: The professor went on a study trip to USA and came back with tears in his eyes - he had seen, in real life, a machine that could do operations on such relations, in real life! Imagine what that means for automatic information processing!
Today, joining relations is taught to high school kids like everyday math. The revolution didn't materialize. It changed computing, but didn't revolutionize it.
I won't hold my breath while waiting for AI to materialize. It is like 3D movies: When you have lived for a few years, you have seen a few waves of it. I think I have seen more AI waves than 3D waves, but through history, there has been comparable numbers of those.
|
|
|
|
|
Which is exactly the same argument for extraterrestrials, PSI powers and amazing technologies such as a normal car that can get hundreds of mile to one gallon of gas.
There is no such thing as a 'breakthrough'. All science is incremental.
Thus for something so significant to happen there would need to be existing known prior technology that it is based on.
The AI blitz now isn't 'sudden'. There are multiple projects by different groups to get it to where it is now. And that started almost 10 years ago. And they didn't start in a vacuum - it was based on prior research on exactly the same topic.
|
|
|
|
|
At last it doesn't get violent in a discussion about nearly anything as do many today, and definitely doesn't get its feeling hurt (though it seemed to when I told it it was a fancy expert system with lots of memory and storage space) HAH
|
|
|
|
|
Member 8002925 wrote: At last it doesn't get violent in a discussion about nearly anything...
If it 'learns' from humans, it will.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
jeron1 wrote: Member 8002925 wrote: At last it doesn't get violent in a discussion about nearly anything...If it 'learns' from humans, it will.
James P Hogan: The Two Faces of Tomorrow[^] is a good read.
Don't worry about the publication year. The AI parts could have been authored last year. Most younger people will be surprised how little things have changed in the AI sector in 40+ years.
|
|
|
|
|
Old saying -
"Switch off the brain. Then switch on AI".
|
|
|
|
|
Waht auobt wehn the lrettes are regnarrad?
|
|
|
|
|
That's DAI - Dyslexic AI
They're working on it!
As the aircraft designer said, "Simplicate and add lightness".
PartsBin an Electronics Part Organizer - Release Version 1.3.0 JaxCoder.com
Latest Article: SimpleWizardUpdate
|
|
|
|
|
AI is just a bunch of nested if-statements 
|
|
|
|
|
|
It isn't intelligent, if you believe that nonsense then you fall for marketing. It does not deduce, nor produce. It repeats, based on input - and garbage in..
It can be used to make nice pictures; just don't expect any deep philosophic insights yet.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Probably more appropriate to note that the AI application you were using was stupid, in your opinion. To consider that AI has great potential is easy, all my life, it has been said that I am 90% potential.
Like all things technology related, there is the good and the bad. Like everything on the Internet, it is too easy to be anonymous.
Dreams are free. Goals are expensive.
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed!! Fro what it ism, firs tof all you have to be a good "question asker" as the AI doesn't have intuitive contextual abilities. that said, it (for the work....yes real work) I have done' with it, its pretty cool.
|
|
|
|
|
theoldfool wrote: all my life, it has been said that I am 90% potential.
American? Maybe they wear that smile because they're told to. If you're above 40%, they're either a salesmen, or a politician. If you think 90%, then boy, you're gullible.
theoldfool wrote: Like everything on the Internet, it is too easy to be anonymous.
Which it also was before the internet. That's just temporary though, as everyone is on Facebook and Twitter.
theoldfool wrote: Dreams are free. Goals are expensive.
You just used a lot of words, and said nothing.
Hello 
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
), the bank teller, fast-food restaurant worker ("you want fries with that?")...need I mention more?