Talk:Artificial intelligence/Archive 1

message: DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between DATE and DATE.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are
replying to if necessary.
Please add new archivals to Talk:Artificial intelligence/Archive02. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. moxon 01:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

message: === Refactor the article by providing an outline ===
213, you suggest you'd like to refactor this article.  Would  you like to suggest an outline (have a look at my brief suggestion above) so we can collaborate on such a rewrite (which I've been meaning to do myself but haven't got around to)? BTW, have you considered getting yourself a handle?  213.x.x.x is so impersonal :> --Robert Merkel 11:11 Oct 10, 2002 (UTC)
=== History of AI ===
I am thinking about (re?)writing a section, the History of AI, reusing some information already present and also introduce more events of interest. It is probably best to break this section out as a separate article I believe. Any ideas? /Vidstige 11:50, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrites of the article 

message: I am thinking about (re?)writing a section, the History of AI, reusing some information already present and also introduce more events of interest. It is probably best to break this section out as a separate article I believe. Any ideas? /Vidstige 11:50, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of AI 

message: Could somebody cite specific interest from AI researchers in ape intelligence?  Neural networks were originally inspired by brain research (though latter neural nets don't resemble the biological model much), and there has been some research into "artificial insect" ideas, but ape cognition doesn't seem to be of sufficient interest to single it out. --Robert Merkel 03:33, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research into apes' intelligence and implications for AI 

message: was titled "A million words of memory" 
In the sixties, an eminent AI research—possibly John McCarthy—said something to the effect that there were no longer any significant theoretical or practical barriers to the achievement of AI except hardware limitations, and that he could demonstrate AI as soon as someone would fund his acquisition of a machine with a million words of memory. This is just fuzzy middle-aged memory and I don't have a citation for it. Does anyone have one? Seems to me this would be worth a mention in the main article if it could be confirmed. The exact wording and context are important, of course.  I'm guessing the reference would be to an IBM 709, 7090, or 7094, in which case a million words would correspond to about four-and-a-half megabytes.  :-) Dpbsmith 16:56, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You have found an eminent AI researcher who made a bold claim about AI which turns out to be false.  Is thereby the field of AI discredited?  If so then all fields of research are discredited because all of them have suffered outlandish claims.  E.g.  Linus Pauling won a Nobel Prize for Chemistry and went on to make outlandish claims re Vitamin C.  Is Chemistry discredited?  No.  Shall we insert these ludicrous claims into the Chemistry page?  No.  Onto the Linus Pauling page?  Yes.  It is McCarthy (if it were him) who is discredited, not AI.  Psb777 10:36, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmmm. Interesting point, but don't you think there's merit in a section called "Mistaken Predictions About AI by Reputable Proponents"?  It does highlight the point that some people in the field have been over-optimistic about the computing resources (at least, cf Shadows of the Mind and The Emperor's New Mind) required to realise it, and that the workings of the human brain are more difficult to emulate (through difference from conventional computing equipment and developmental processes, and through greater complexity) than has been thought at various times in the past. An exploration of why these mistakes have been made (the confusion caused by the superior calculating capabilities of machines, for instance) would be valuable.  Conversely, one could point out that many of the most inaccurate predictions were made some time ago, and that many other mistaken predictions have been made. Mr. Jones 20:28, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Artificial Intelligence is an extraordinary field because it questions our presumed special position in the Universe.  The Strong AI position in particular many seem to find threatening and it provokes a near-religious opposition.  Why should this article have a "list of failures" when we do not see this in articles which would be much more deserving of it.  Even established hard disciplines have had their failures.  On the other hand, the last thing that should happen is that the AI failures should be swept under the carpet.  Perhaps we should have a section of "Those Successes of AI which were said to be Impossible by Reputable Opponents".  Of course, many of these are defined by them (now) as not being "intelligence". Paul Beardsell 01:18, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that would be closer to the ideal of NPOV. Mr. Jones 20:08, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistaken Predictions about AI 

message: This article (currently) starts
:Artificial intelligence, commonly abbreviated as AI, also known as machine intelligence, is the practice of developing algorithms that make machines (usually computers) able to make seemingly intelligent decisions, or act as if possessing intelligence of a human scale.
No.  That's like saying evolution is the practice of working out how the different species came to exist.  I deliberately choose a controversial (in the US at least) topic.  Evolution is thought by some (most!) to be the way that different species have come to exist, it isn't the practice of describing how.  Now please do not argue with me about evolution:  I was just trying to find a controversial subject to compare with AI.
Similarly:  AI is artifical intelligence, whether you believe that such a thing is possible or not.  It is not some process of trying to make something appear intelligent, however unlikely you thing AI is.  Just because you think AI unlikely doesn't mean you can deny what it is (or might be).
Another example:  UFOs is not the practice of faking the photographs.  AI, similarly, is not the practice of making something (i.e. artificial) appear intelligent.  It is the artifical intelligence itself, whether you believe in it or not.
One or two of the contributors to this article seem to have an axe to grind.  Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral.  I am going to re-write that 1st paragraph.
Psb777 23:54, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect definition: AI is not research 

message: Arthur T. Murray, a.k.a. Mentifex, is a notorious net.kook who has been spamming and mass-mailing his pseudoscientific writings for over thirty years.  He is now repeatedly adding to Wikipedia pages inappropriate references to his own work, and repeatedly removing from pages information which presents an opposing point of view to his theories or gives evidence which may cause others to see them in a negative light.  For example, he has repeatedly inserted his own name in the "List of Prominent AI Theorists" section of the AI article.
As no serious AI researcher considers Murray's work to be anything but crackpottery, please help keep this page and others related to AI free of kookery.
Please see the Arthur T. Murray/Mentifex FAQ for further details on Murray's claims and posting history.  This FAQ links to much of Murray's own writing so you can make your own independent assessment of it.
—Psychonaut 16:18, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding Wikipedia edits by Murray

message: It seems to me this article is much improved.  That all views are represented.  There is a lot to be disputed on this, the Talk page, but the article seems NPOV to me.  Can we remove the The neutrality of this article is disputed. tag now?  Psb777 10:11, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The NPOV dispute was added by kook Arthur T. Murray (16:59, 3 Feb 2004) because I was removing references he had added to his self-published book.  Murray has written other vanity articles on Wikipedia which have since been deleted by the admins. I don't know what the procedure is for removing NPOV dispute tags, but if anyone can do it, then yes, go ahead.  AFAICT the only one who believes Murray should be referenced in this article is Murray himself. —Psychonaut 10:22, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Is the neutrality of this article still disputed?

message: The second is much harder, raising questions of consciousness and self, mind (including the unconscious mind) and the question of what components are involved in the only type of intelligence it is universally agreed we have available to study: that of human beings. Study of animals and artificial systems that are not just models of what exists already are widely considered very pertinent, too.
Could someone be so kind to translate the above text to plain English? Vidstige 18:15, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Paragraph not understood

message: Is the content of this page really appropriate for its topic?  You'd think that the page "Artificial Intelligence" would act as an overview of the field and a gateway to subtopics in AI (which may not exist yet) -- and would be in understandable English. The sections and topics are still badly opinionated, too.  The arguments aren't presented in anything resembling order. And what's with the "Electronic wavelet holographic interference" stuff?
Maybe this page's problems stem from its position as a major topic page, or it could just be people wiki-stomping on it all the time.  Whatever's gone wrong, however, it needs to be fixed.
I'm halfway tempted to rewrite the page from scratch, if nobody minds.  It's a bloddy mess.
* Update: Ok, I got a little hot-headed there.  The last guy to edit added a few blatently opinionated things in there about "electronic wavelets" in bad english and inapporpriate areas, and ticked me off.  I've removed it, and feel much better now. Khaydarian 02:23, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive Confusion on This Page 

message: An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Artificial_intelligence article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add  to this page. — LinkBot 01:01, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:LinkBot/suggestions/Artificial_intelligence|Link suggestions]] 

message: A special edition of Journal of Consciousness Studies (a peer-reviewed journal) dedicated to Machine Consciousness . Machine Consciousness and other variations are described under Artificial Consciousness, which is wider term (for example possible systems with biological components). So please study the issue a bit more, and be more careful, while deleting. Even psychology is not, strictly speaking, a science, neither are consciousness studies etc. This was not a good reason to delete that link, if someone has other consideretions, please say.Tkorrovi 22:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Pseudoscience links"

message: I find the third paragraph to be pretty annoying. It currently reads:
:Historically, AI researchers aimed for the loftier goal of so-called strong AI, of simulating complete, human-like intelligence. This goal is epitomised by the fictional strong AI computer HAL 9000 in the film 2001: A Space Odyssey. This goal is unlikely to be met in the near future and is no longer the subject of most serious AI research. The label "AI" has something of a bad name due to the failure of these early expectations, and aggravation by various popular science writers and media personalities such as Professor Kevin Warwick whose work has raised the expectations of AI research far beyond its current capabilities. For this reason, many AI researchers say they work in cognitive science, informatics, statistical inference or information engineering in an attempt to distance themselves from such charlatanism.
Not to be nasty here, but why is Kevin Warwick here? He appears to just be a minor character (at least his notoriety is recent) in the field though I grant he could possibly be aggrevating. Why aren't we mentioning here, for example, Marvin Minsky or Japan's Fifth Generation project? KarlHallowell 20:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nitpicks - blameseeking for strong AI failure 

message: I was checking out the latest entry, Sankar K Pal to the list of AI researchers. His publication list (on Citeseer) is rather small (though several other people on the list have similar records) and he appears (at a glance) to have written at least one book and have a long career as a founder and administrator of AI-related research programs in India. OTOH, it's somewhat pedantic, but his research does seem rather limited.
So what qualities does someone need to warrant inclusion on this list? -- KarlHallowell 14:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Names I have marked (Ref to publications?) lack references to publications. I removed them in the corresponding portal article. --Mneser 01:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

text: There are thousands of researchers in this field. For these researchers I suggest them to be added to the Category link. For researchers to be mentioned here, some criteria is needed e.g. significant academic publications on the subject.--moxon 20:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: here here (agreed). Only famous reserachers should be listed on this page (published major works on the subject or who have concepts named after them, etc) . One thing though, why are many famous researchers (Alan Turing for one) not in the category? Is this an oversight or a statement? Broken S 20:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria for AI researcher? 

message: I have started a AI portal. The idea is that the information in this article not concerning the definition of AI be moved to appropriate sub-articles. Assistance in this process will be appreciated. --Mneser 16:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Link: Portal:Artificial intelligence. I can help. — Asbestos | Talk  (RFC) 00:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Portal & Split

message: The "Machines displaying some degree of intelligence" section is silly. There are many programs which display some level of intelligence. Also most of those listed are actually programs not machines. I suggest replacing it with "Famous implementaions of AI" and include deeper blue and other famous AI bots (and excluding links, if it doesn't have an article it doesn't deserve to be listed). Objecions? This article does need a lot of work. Broken S 20:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete section?