Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



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

Journal: How Intelligent are current AI's really?

It seems to me that the AI systems we create are all very application specific, like the IBM Watson - how many hours of work did it take just to get Watson to be able to play a simple game, it's not a generic AI system, it wasn't an AI that could enter any quiz.

Watson was good at Jeopardy not because it had a good AI, but because it's creators were highly intelligent and were able to code a computer to be good at Jeopardy because *they* not the computer were intelligent.

Is there a computer that exists that can do a normal IQ test like for example* IQ Test?

From what I've seen when AI's have been tested, the tests have been created, altered or cherry-picked so that the AI can complete the test, which of course is of dubious value. And of course IQ tests have a tendency to be very math and geometry based.

And journalists come up with headlines like "Artificial Intelligence System 'ConceptNet 4' Has IQ of 4-Year-Old", but it's not like human intelligence..

ConceptNet 4 had very uneven scores across the board, which would typically concern those who administer the test. The AI system did well on vocabulary tests and the ability to recognize similarities, but lacked when it came to "why" -- or commonsense -- questions.

How does all this apply to real world situations? Well, the google car has been rear ended 7+ times, roughly ten times the norm, this raises questions as to why? Did the car fail to anticipate being rear-ended? Or did the car brake suddenly because it was not intelligent enough to determine that there was no risk of harm ahead? Did this come down to the cars inability to recognise an object in front of it, or did this come down to the car not being able to decide that it would be better to go over the object rather than being rear-ended.

.
.
.
* not really a very good test, some of the questions had more than 1 possible answer and it doesn't tell you which questions you got right or wrong. And it's time based, tying intelligence to time is idiotic, Einstein did not come up with the theory of relativity in 15 minutes.

User Journal

Journal: Google has completely fucked itself RANT ALERT 3 3

Unbelievable, google have lost all control of their senses, why:

1) "searches in quotes" no longer does an exact search.
2) Search-for-words-together also does not work.
3) Only 6 results on the first page.
4) Only 5 results out of 527,000 shown and then I get completely irrelevant "Results for similar searches".
5) Google.com redirects to wrong country.
6) Google.com/ncr search not working.
7) + operator does nothing.
8) And while I'm at it, image search options GUI is shit, badly laid out, confusing headings etc.

Simple search: 'frostwire set seed ratio'
Relevant results, BIG FAT NADA ZERO NONE

Did I get volunteered into google shit version testing without being asked or something, I've noticed how sites like to do that, different users getting different versions of a site, my response to this is:

I DON'T FUCKING LIKE IT GOOGLE, FUCK OFF YOU FUCKING MONEY WORSHIPING ADVERTISING WHORES.

Counting in binary is just like counting in decimal -- if you are all thumbs. -- Glaser and Way

Working...