Peswiki - Q and A just finished; reading of results; 470 kW maintained continuously during self-sustain; customer satisfied; sale made; more later.
I'm skeptical, but damn, I hope I'm wrong.
...I cried with laughter.
Same reaction I had when I read
When I got to the bit in the tutorials...
in your post.
I'll take your criticisms with the same level of credibility as the depth of your analysis.
I've studied and worked in AI and related fields for 35 years (no grant money, just paid to build systems that work). In all those years, I never heard anyone place such irrational constraints on how AI can be implemented. It's a good thing the Wright brothers didn't have a "if it's not flapping it's wings, it's not flying" constraint placed on them, otherwise we wouldn't be allowed to call air travel "flying". Can't you see how ridiculous your rationale is?
You knew it because it's true. Nothing you've mentioned is in any way "AI" ("speech recognition"? Oh, please). This is all just pattern matching, and in the case of the chess computer and Watson they can only do what they do because there are people guiding them. Things look more advanced than they did in the '80s, but that's only because we have better hardware. In terms of actually developing something that can learn and make inferences it's the same way a rat could we're no closer.
Thank you. I've found that the way to deal with those that spout the "no progress" line is to get them to expound a little. That always makes their ignorance clear.
You think speech recognition is simply pattern matching? Are you kidding? Where in simple pattern matching algorithms do you maintain context? How do you distinguish between "died" and "dyed" or "where" or "wear"? What about language processing (NLP), inference and response generation, etc,etc. I could go on for days about the complexity involved and not scratch the surface, but I'm sure it would be lost on you. If you consider all the techniques and algorithms "pattern matching" then, technically, all a brain does is pattern matching, but that doesn't stop it from being intelligent.
And that crap about Watson being guided by people? You obviously did no research at all on what it does and how it works, though there is plenty of material available that describes it. Portions of it are even open sourced so you can look at some of the code. But I guess that'd be too much trouble. It's much easier to make an unsubstantiated claim.
To be honest, what bothers me the most is why I wasted my time even responding to such a ridiculous comment. Come back when you've read a book or two.
What kind of phone did you have in the '80s that performed speech recognition? How many chess programs were around that could beat the best human players? How many times did a computer win over the best humans at Jeopardy? Would you rather your investments be managed by software from the 80's or be managed by some of the new high frequency trading systems of today (assuming you prefer to make rather than lose money)? AI has made great strides since then in many areas.
No, we haven't achieved human level intelligence yet, but to say we're no closer is pure idiocy.
The future of computing is artificial consciousness, and it will be here within 20 years, and maybe much sooner than that,' says Sawyer.
Yeah, it'll be running on a Linux desktop in my fusion powered flying car in the Mars colony. Good thing they're all just 20 years away.
Could be. Once AGI is achieved, the rest will be a piece of cake.
some of the competitive eaters were left writhing on the floor in agony, vomiting and fainting.
Meanwhile at a seemingly unrelated event for ball-peen-hammer-head-bangers a few blocks away, some were left writhing on the floor in agony, vomiting and fainting after pummeling their skullcaps with their 16 pound hammers.
Aren't their Darwin awards for this type of behavior?
it always failed to understand what my kid says.
I have the same problem (failing to understand what my kid says).
All syllogisms have three parts, therefore this is not a syllogism.