Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:They keep changing the definition (Score 2, Informative) 472 472

I would absolutely disagree that we aren't "demonstrably closer to reproducing human intelligence in a machine than we were thirty years ago". This remark shows a profound lack of understanding about the different approaches to artificial intelligence and our achievements with those approaches. The two fundamental approaches to AI are through Expert Systems and Neural Networks (Genetic Algorithms being more of an Algorithm deriver then AI). In my opinion "True AI" can really only be achieved with neural networks that simulate how our own brains work. It's brain-style programming that trains a network based on a set of learning inputs and can then be used to do pattern matching based on various inputs, even inputs it wasn't trained on. This is what powers voice recognition, handwriting recognition, facial recognition, object/edge recognition (see a pattern here?), etc. The things that humans do well is where Neural Networks have excelled. In many ways I believe these "reproduce" human intelligence, and are formidable achievements. Cognition, memory, etc. are emergent properties of our own neural complexity that is still being explored and that have yet to be fully understood and given our current level of understanding are still a long ways off which is the horizon I believe you are referring to.

If the code and the comments disagree, then both are probably wrong. -- Norm Schryer

Working...