So you are saying that every child is dumber than his parents?
No, I am saying that the intelligence of the parents didn't create (design) the intelligence of the child, and even if that were so, your definition wouldn't classify them as intelligent unless the child were more (not equally) intelligent.
And I didn't define "intelligence" or "natural intelligence" but "artificial intelligence". Like physical beings, AI must be able to replicate, or it isn't "alive" enough to meet my requirements.
Defining intelligence is the important part, and applying artificiality to it (by saying it's a program rather than a creature) is the step that makes for a definition of AI. And who mentioned "alive"? AI is artificial. it need not replicate at all to be intelligent and artificial.
Seems what your complaint is that the combination "artificial intelligence" doesn't use "intelligence" as defined in the dictionary. Oddly enough, my cup-board doesn't hold any cups. Nor does my dash-board have any dash on it (nor is it a board, unlike my cupboard, which is a physical board). Seems there are many definitions where the combinations of words makes a unique meaning unrelated to the component words.
But artificial FOO is a very distinct pattern in English. Many people are setting up artificial trees and wreaths this time of year. Artificial lighting is well understood (real light, artificial source). Artificial sweeteners, turf, etc. It stands to reason that Artificial Intelligence would be like Artificial lighting (real intelligence, artificial source), or at least like artificial sweeteners where it *tastes* like standard intelligence, but has an artificial source.
Your ignorance of linguistics isn't a compelling argument against my definition of AI.
You were making good conversation up until this. It's rude to assume ignorance on my part with naught but infrequent slashdot posts (or just one).
I define AI as any program that can create a version of itself that's smarter than itself.
That seems to be a disingenuous definition since it would imply that non-artificial intelligence would be any naturally occurring organism that can design a version of itself that's smarter than itself. Which would imply that nothing yet is intelligent. What you're defining is "Artificial Super-Genius".
... nougat.
"It's what makes your planet so delicious" - Galactus
Damn, look at all those sleeper accounts. At least one even has excellent karma.
Yes. Blech. I enjoy reading at score:-1 so that I can see the occasional undeserved down-mod, but I'd really like a feature that takes posts that are 99.999% the same and only displays the diffs or maybe an account feature where certain phrases (edited per user) trigger an entire post to be blanked out in that user's view. This page is currently very hard to read with all the pointless MyCleanPC spam.
If speech can incite violence (it doesn't ), then provocative clothing can incite rape (it doesn't), and we have to cover our women head to toe..
Covering women head to toe incites Ferengis to imagine undressing them. Do you really want that?
Is there any problem in the world that roundhouse kick from Chuck Norris can't solve?
Is it a problem if Chuck Norris keeps roundhouse kicking everything?
The cost of feathers has risen, even down is up!
