AI Doesn't Exist

[Bodi]

Aren’t/weren’t you an educator?

I am not sure how that is relevant... but yes.

They were programmed like everyone else during their day. They exceeded their programming to become something more. Which is why we recognize them as genii.

The capacity to learn was already programed in.

 

[Gatsby]

What the uninformed - such as the media - call Artificial Intelligence is not actually Artificial Intelligence. They just don't know any better.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the ability of a computer to go beyond its original programming and solve problems that it was never specifically programmed to accomplish. A computer that follows its programming exactly as written cannot be construed as Artificially Intelligent, no matter how clever its programming may be. Those systems are called "Expert Systems" and they are not AI.

We have Expert Systems capable of making accurate medical diagnosis. We have Expert Systems capable of flying aircraft and spacecraft. We have Expert Systems doing a wide variety of complex tasks, and none of them are AI. Expert Systems are when the programmer(s) write their expertise into a form that the computer can calculate. It is therefore not the expertise of the computer, but the expertise of the programmer(s) involved.

A computer can only be considered artificially intelligent when it can exceed its own programming by performing tasks it was never specifically programmed to accomplish. If a program that was designed and developed to diagnose medical issues, and it also provided a solution for cleaning up an oil spill, for example, then that would be an example of true AI.

Unfortunately, what we have are a bunch of ignorant fools in the media calling everything AI, when none of it is. Everything the media calls AI is actually an Expert System and not AI at all.

As someone who has worked in the field since the 1970s, AI is quite impossible to achieve with binary computers. It may be possible with quantum computers, but that is at least another 50 to 100 years into the future before that will become a reality.

AI is not written by "programming the expertise" of the programmer into the computer. For example, a data scientist or machine learning engineer writing an AI system for drug discovery doesn't necessarily need to know anything at all about biology or pharmacology. (That might help, but it isn't strictly necessary). As long as you have lots and lots of data and a good understanding of neural network architecture, the AI can become an expert in fields in which its creator is not an expert.

 

[iguanaman]

What the uninformed - such as the media - call Artificial Intelligence is not actually Artificial Intelligence. They just don't know any better.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the ability of a computer to go beyond its original programming and solve problems that it was never specifically programmed to accomplish. A computer that follows its programming exactly as written cannot be construed as Artificially Intelligent, no matter how clever its programming may be. Those systems are called "Expert Systems" and they are not AI.

We have Expert Systems capable of making accurate medical diagnosis. We have Expert Systems capable of flying aircraft and spacecraft. We have Expert Systems doing a wide variety of complex tasks, and none of them are AI. Expert Systems are when the programmer(s) write their expertise into a form that the computer can calculate. It is therefore not the expertise of the computer, but the expertise of the programmer(s) involved.

A computer can only be considered artificially intelligent when it can exceed its own programming by performing tasks it was never specifically programmed to accomplish. If a program that was designed and developed to diagnose medical issues, and it also provided a solution for cleaning up an oil spill, for example, then that would be an example of true AI.

Unfortunately, what we have are a bunch of ignorant fools in the media calling everything AI, when none of it is. Everything the media calls AI is actually an Expert System and not AI at all.

As someone who has worked in the field since the 1970s, AI is quite impossible to achieve with binary computers. It may be possible with quantum computers, but that is at least another 50 to 100 years into the future before that will become a reality.

AI simply means a computer program that can learn and remember things and change its behavior accordingly. The programs that fly drone fighter planes better than any human ace is a good example of AI. They just continue to get better the more they "fly" too. My 12 year old Ford Mustang has a crude form of AI. It's auto transmission needs to "learn" your driving behavior and it shifts a little rough for a while after its memory is wiped until it gets enough inputs to make correct shifts.

How does AI work?​

In general, AI systems work by ingesting large amounts of labeled training data, analyzing that data for correlations and patterns, and using these patterns to make predictions about future states.

https://www.techtarget.com/searchenterpriseai/definition/AI-Artificial-Intelligence

 

[soap box]

What the uninformed - such as the media - call Artificial Intelligence is not actually Artificial Intelligence. They just don't know any better.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the ability of a computer to go beyond its original programming and solve problems that it was never specifically programmed to accomplish. A computer that follows its programming exactly as written cannot be construed as Artificially Intelligent, no matter how clever its programming may be. Those systems are called "Expert Systems" and they are not AI.

We have Expert Systems capable of making accurate medical diagnosis. We have Expert Systems capable of flying aircraft and spacecraft. We have Expert Systems doing a wide variety of complex tasks, and none of them are AI. Expert Systems are when the programmer(s) write their expertise into a form that the computer can calculate. It is therefore not the expertise of the computer, but the expertise of the programmer(s) involved.

A computer can only be considered artificially intelligent when it can exceed its own programming by performing tasks it was never specifically programmed to accomplish. If a program that was designed and developed to diagnose medical issues, and it also provided a solution for cleaning up an oil spill, for example, then that would be an example of true AI.

Unfortunately, what we have are a bunch of ignorant fools in the media calling everything AI, when none of it is. Everything the media calls AI is actually an Expert System and not AI at all.

As someone who has worked in the field since the 1970s, AI is quite impossible to achieve with binary computers. It may be possible with quantum computers, but that is at least another 50 to 100 years into the future before that will become a reality.

Well Glitch, this is reassuring. I understand this and I think you and I have been describing something similar. I see the current limitations and I have doubts about future capabilities.

I guess my only disagreement is that we'll never convince anyone to stop calling it "AI"

 

[Glitch]

Well Glitch, this is reassuring. I understand this and I think you and I have been describing something similar. I see the current limitations and I have doubts about future capabilities.

I guess my only disagreement is that we'll never convince anyone to stop calling it "AI"

Very true. We will never be able to educate everyone. I'm certainly under no delusion that the media will suddenly using the term correctly. They never have before with other misused terms, so why would this be any different? All we can do is point it out when they are wrong. Which is essentially the purpose of this thread. The entire sub-forum is based on something that doesn't exist, at least not yet.

 

[Glitch]

AI simply means a computer program that can learn and remember things and change its behavior accordingly. The programs that fly drone fighter planes better than any human ace is a good example of AI. They just continue to get better the more they "fly" too. My 12 year old Ford Mustang has a crude form of AI. It's auto transmission needs to "learn" your driving behavior and it shifts a little rough for a while after its memory is wiped until it gets enough inputs to make correct shifts.

How does AI work?​

In general, AI systems work by ingesting large amounts of labeled training data, analyzing that data for correlations and patterns, and using these patterns to make predictions about future states.

https://www.techtarget.com/searchenterpriseai/definition/AI-Artificial-Intelligence

Any program can be written to record information. The does not indicate intelligence.

Programs written to fly drones can fly better than humans because they can react faster. That also does not denote intelligence.

There is absolutely nothing intelligent about your automobile. A program was written by one or more humans to adapt to your driving behavior. It is the programmer's very real intelligence that you should be crediting, not some artificial intelligence that doesn't actually exist.

Computers are indeed very good at manipulating large amounts of data. However, they are unable to correlate or analyze patterns until a human specifically tells the computer what to look for. Once again, we are talking about the programmer's intelligence, not the artificial intelligence of a machine. It isn't the computer who comes up with these patterns to look for, it is the programmer.

 

[Slartibartfast]

If you are referring to pattern matching, who determined the pattern for the computer to match? It certainly wasn't the computer. So where exactly does the credit for this pattern matching intelligence belong?

Payyerns aren’t explicitly or implicitly programmed in.

The computer bulk processes until patterns are discovered our of the data corpus in these algorithms.

If I developed the program to accommodate more than just Pascal, then I am coding my own intelligence into the program. The computer isn't thinking outside of the code I provided, and therefore demonstrates no intelligence whatsoever. Simply the ability to follow instructions, as it was originally programmed to do.

That paradigm has nothing to do with how this work. Seriously, read up on word2vec.

I am well aware of how complex equations can become. It is also not a surprise that these programs can provide results that we did not expect. If you have worked with the N-Body problem long enough you can see some surprising results that you might not have anticipated. That does not make them intelligent. They are just better at solving more complex issues at a faster rate than humans. So they can include things like the gravity of objects that we might not have taken into consideration as mere humans, if we program them to take into consideration every object.

Again, you are thinking in terms of the wrong paradigm here.

the scenario in which these programs crystalize (my word for how the embedding work in the models) knowledge of something like gravity is that you let one of these programs consume Newton’s work and other academic papers. Then the program notices certain patterns in the text, like the word gravity (it actually doesn’t think in words, but in pieces of words, but that’s its own rabbit hole of a discussion) is associated with other words. Along with those academic papers, you also have it consume a few dictionaries and perhaps other things to normalize how papers are written against. All of which is patterns it discovers that help interpret those academic papers, which in turn helps it understand gravity.

The researcher then tunes it until they are happy with its outputs, then wraps some other stuff around it, which are out of scope for this discussion, but are different control mechanisms, and then you have a model.

At no point does anyone explicitly program any equations about gravity into the thing using whatever programming language.

Now if you ask whether they are intelligent, I think they are as they are capable of learning. If you ask if they are conscious or aware, I don’t think they are (or if they are, it dies with the session as the model is static and reverts once the lang interactive session is over)

Computers are able to process a great deal more data than we can. That in itself could produce results we did not expect. That does not make the computer intelligent. Just better at processing data.

Wikipedia is not a credible source.

Then we will use kaggle (feel free to look up what that website is to the data science community)

word and phrase embedding model for patent domain

word and phrase embedding for patent domain

www.kaggle.com

 

[Slartibartfast]

01001001 00100000 01101011 01101001 01101110 01100100 00100000 01101111 01100110 00100000 01100001 01100111 01110010 01100101 01100101

 

[Slartibartfast]

Well Glitch, this is reassuring. I understand this and I think you and I have been describing something similar. I see the current limitations and I have doubts about future capabilities.

I guess my only disagreement is that we'll never convince anyone to stop calling it "AI"

The platform on which the learning can occur is an expert system. The actual learning and reproduction of knowledge that these AIs do is not an expert system. It’s something new.

 

[SMTA]

What the uninformed - such as the media - call Artificial Intelligence is not actually Artificial Intelligence. They just don't know any better.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the ability of a computer to go beyond its original programming and solve problems that it was never specifically programmed to accomplish. A computer that follows its programming exactly as written cannot be construed as Artificially Intelligent, no matter how clever its programming may be. Those systems are called "Expert Systems" and they are not AI.

We have Expert Systems capable of making accurate medical diagnosis. We have Expert Systems capable of flying aircraft and spacecraft. We have Expert Systems doing a wide variety of complex tasks, and none of them are AI. Expert Systems are when the programmer(s) write their expertise into a form that the computer can calculate. It is therefore not the expertise of the computer, but the expertise of the programmer(s) involved.

A computer can only be considered artificially intelligent when it can exceed its own programming by performing tasks it was never specifically programmed to accomplish. If a program that was designed and developed to diagnose medical issues, and it also provided a solution for cleaning up an oil spill, for example, then that would be an example of true AI.

Unfortunately, what we have are a bunch of ignorant fools in the media calling everything AI, when none of it is. Everything the media calls AI is actually an Expert System and not AI at all.

As someone who has worked in the field since the 1970s, AI is quite impossible to achieve with binary computers. It may be possible with quantum computers, but that is at least another 50 to 100 years into the future before that will become a reality.

Yet another absolutely ignorant post chocked full of pure stupidity.
Unbelievably hilarious.

 

[L88]

They did not evolve, they were programed to be genius's.

By Genetics? With maybe some environmental factors?

 

[L88]

Yet another absolutely ignorant post chocked full of pure stupidity.
Unbelievably hilarious.

Why would you dismiss his opinion without substance?

Big Tech’s ‘fake-it-till-you-make-it’ hype is now infecting AI​

ChatGPT and its peers do not understand what words mean​

The fundamental problem with ChatGPT and other large language models (LLMs) is that they do not understand what words mean. They are very much like a young savant who can recite every word in all six volumes of the History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire without comprehending any of the content. Without such comprehension, LLMs are not going to morph into artificial general intelligence (AGI) — the ability to perform any intellectual task that human beings can do.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ai-replicating-human-thinking-is-more-big-tech-fake-it-till-you-make-it-hype-4cbd503e

 

[OlNate]

They were programmed like everyone else during their day. They exceeded their programming to become something more. Which is why we recognize them as genii.

Interesting consideration...all three of those examples were posthumously diagnosed with ADHD - they all had neurodivergent brains. Can't prove it entirely, due to the posthumously part, but kind of interesting to throw that variable into the mix. If this is true, it means that rather than being "programmed like everyone else", they simply mastered the art of *appearing* to be programmed like everyone else (neurodivergent masking), which their neurodivergency allowed them to do while simultaneously pushing the boundaries of humanity's understanding of the universe.

Kinda speaks to what you were saying about AI as you have defined it would require a move to something more complex than binary code... soon we won't be creating computers, we'll be creating brains. That's both exciting and scary, depending on what the last headline you read was...hehe

 

[SMTA]

Why would you dismiss his opinion without substance?

Big Tech’s ‘fake-it-till-you-make-it’ hype is now infecting AI​

ChatGPT and its peers do not understand what words mean​

The fundamental problem with ChatGPT and other large language models (LLMs) is that they do not understand what words mean. They are very much like a young savant who can recite every word in all six volumes of the History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire without comprehending any of the content. Without such comprehension, LLMs are not going to morph into artificial general intelligence (AGI) — the ability to perform any intellectual task that human beings can do.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ai-replicating-human-thinking-is-more-big-tech-fake-it-till-you-make-it-hype-4cbd503e

Because he historically always posts pure bullshit
You should carry the water for anyone else here

 

[BirdinHand]

Glad to see that Glitch is now also an expert in computer programming and what is/isnt AI.

 

[fireflygmf]

What the uninformed - such as the media - call Artificial Intelligence is not actually Artificial Intelligence. They just don't know any better.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the ability of a computer to go beyond its original programming and solve problems that it was never specifically programmed to accomplish. A computer that follows its programming exactly as written cannot be construed as Artificially Intelligent, no matter how clever its programming may be. Those systems are called "Expert Systems" and they are not AI.

We have Expert Systems capable of making accurate medical diagnosis. We have Expert Systems capable of flying aircraft and spacecraft. We have Expert Systems doing a wide variety of complex tasks, and none of them are AI. Expert Systems are when the programmer(s) write their expertise into a form that the computer can calculate. It is therefore not the expertise of the computer, but the expertise of the programmer(s) involved.

A computer can only be considered artificially intelligent when it can exceed its own programming by performing tasks it was never specifically programmed to accomplish. If a program that was designed and developed to diagnose medical issues, and it also provided a solution for cleaning up an oil spill, for example, then that would be an example of true AI.

Unfortunately, what we have are a bunch of ignorant fools in the media calling everything AI, when none of it is. Everything the media calls AI is actually an Expert System and not AI at all.

As someone who has worked in the field since the 1970s, AI is quite impossible to achieve with binary computers. It may be possible with quantum computers, but that is at least another 50 to 100 years into the future before that will become a reality.

I've been in the field for 25+ years now. What we have currently are AI systems, not expert systems. Claude, ChatGPT (and others) model algorithmic neuronal propagation and it's connection weights are self-trained using a massive set of training data. These AI models can be self correcting, and in no way has their output been pre-programmed.

The behaviour is an aggregate of countless neuronal relationships, and is emergent.

 

[MSgt]

Very true. We will never be able to educate everyone. I'm certainly under no delusion that the media will suddenly using the term correctly. They never have before with other misused terms, so why would this be any different? All we can do is point it out when they are wrong. Which is essentially the purpose of this thread. The entire sub-forum is based on something that doesn't exist, at least not yet.

I think the purpose of this thread was to just complain about the media. For example, your very first sentence:

What the uninformed - such as the media - call Artificial Intelligence is not actually Artificial Intelligence. They just don't know any better.

And with this latest, somewhat summarizing, post you jump right back to attacking the media over this.

The media didn't come up with "AI." Outlets merely report on something, as described by those who deal with it. And software engineers and the like, right or wrong, have been referring to computer programming as AI for decades. In fact, "artificial intelligence" laboratories were set up at a number of British and U.S. Universities as early as the 1950s.

Here is a contrary example: while most of the world's media outlets referred to Covid, FOX News and other right-wing sources referred to it as the "Wuhan Virus" or the "Chinese Virus." Now, that was pure maliciousness, not an "error" of terminology. But did those media outlets come up with that terminology? No. They may have promoted that political game, but these outlets simply used what was provided to them.

So, back to AI, should the media refer to something differently from what the experts refer to it as? Here is a complimentary example: The media stopped referring to a certain period of history as the "Dark Ages," because Historians, the experts, agreed that the terminology was wrong and misleading. It is the "Middle Ages." Until scientists and software engineers agree to call something in their field differently, the media will continue to refer to things as they do.

 

[fireflygmf]

Computers are indeed very good at manipulating large amounts of data. However, they are unable to correlate or analyze patterns until a human specifically tells the computer what to look for. Once again, we are talking about the programmer's intelligence, not the artificial intelligence of a machine. It isn't the computer who comes up with these patterns to look for, it is the programmer.

I think you're missing critical information, because this is EXACTLY reversed in IA. It is their ability to recognize patterns independent of expert guidance that makes them different. It is in fact the AI's intelligence recognizing the patterns.

What you say was true 10+ years ago, but no longer. You should study how modern AI's are built, how they work and revisit your opinion.

 

[MSgt]

I think you're missing critical information, because this is EXACTLY reversed in IA. <----Reversed.

Ha! I see what you did there. You clever man.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

What the uninformed - such as the media - call Artificial Intelligence is not actually Artificial Intelligence. They just don't know any better.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the ability of a computer to go beyond its original programming and solve problems that it was never specifically programmed to accomplish. A computer that follows its programming exactly as written cannot be construed as Artificially Intelligent, no matter how clever its programming may be. Those systems are called "Expert Systems" and they are not AI.

We have Expert Systems capable of making accurate medical diagnosis. We have Expert Systems capable of flying aircraft and spacecraft. We have Expert Systems doing a wide variety of complex tasks, and none of them are AI. Expert Systems are when the programmer(s) write their expertise into a form that the computer can calculate. It is therefore not the expertise of the computer, but the expertise of the programmer(s) involved.

A computer can only be considered artificially intelligent when it can exceed its own programming by performing tasks it was never specifically programmed to accomplish. If a program that was designed and developed to diagnose medical issues, and it also provided a solution for cleaning up an oil spill, for example, then that would be an example of true AI.

Unfortunately, what we have are a bunch of ignorant fools in the media calling everything AI, when none of it is. Everything the media calls AI is actually an Expert System and not AI at all.

As someone who has worked in the field since the 1970s, AI is quite impossible to achieve with binary computers. It may be possible with quantum computers, but that is at least another 50 to 100 years into the future before that will become a reality.

It's semantics. According to the Turing Test, most current LLMs would qualify as AI. Also, what you call "Expert Systems" is not a description of Large Language Models at all. In fact, you aren't describing any sort of machine learning, which is what we commonly associate with "AI". LLMs, and most current AI research use GPUs, not traditional CPUs.

Large language model - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

LLMs are so complex that the researchers building the next generations of them don't really know their full capabilities.

 

[uptower]

What they call AI these days is just really good mimicking. Does it really innovate?

As an example I've been experimenting with GPT prompts as a creative writing tool. All it does is tap everything out there then cobble together something that's a sort of down the middle aggregate. The prose is so cliche it comes out like a 12 year old kid making their first attempt. Or Dan Brown's latest "blockbuster".

Needs so much editing you might as well write it from scratch. It's not really creating anything new, just repeating everything else.

Likewise I think other software that seems to think in the fly but maybe is just going through preset possibilities.

 

[mrjurrs]

What the uninformed - such as the media - call Artificial Intelligence is not actually Artificial Intelligence. They just don't know any better.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the ability of a computer to go beyond its original programming and solve problems that it was never specifically programmed to accomplish. A computer that follows its programming exactly as written cannot be construed as Artificially Intelligent, no matter how clever its programming may be. Those systems are called "Expert Systems" and they are not AI.

We have Expert Systems capable of making accurate medical diagnosis. We have Expert Systems capable of flying aircraft and spacecraft. We have Expert Systems doing a wide variety of complex tasks, and none of them are AI. Expert Systems are when the programmer(s) write their expertise into a form that the computer can calculate. It is therefore not the expertise of the computer, but the expertise of the programmer(s) involved.

A computer can only be considered artificially intelligent when it can exceed its own programming by performing tasks it was never specifically programmed to accomplish. If a program that was designed and developed to diagnose medical issues, and it also provided a solution for cleaning up an oil spill, for example, then that would be an example of true AI.

Unfortunately, what we have are a bunch of ignorant fools in the media calling everything AI, when none of it is. Everything the media calls AI is actually an Expert System and not AI at all.

As someone who has worked in the field since the 1970s, AI is quite impossible to achieve with binary computers. It may be possible with quantum computers, but that is at least another 50 to 100 years into the future before that will become a reality.

A rose by any other name is still a rose.

 

[stealthycat]

is the ability of a computer to go beyond its original programming and solve problems that it was never specifically programmed to accomplish

was it programmed to do that ?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

What they call AI these days is just really good mimicking. Does it really innovate?

As an example I've been experimenting with GPT prompts as a creative writing tool. All it does is tap everything out there then cobble together something that's a sort of down the middle aggregate. The prose is so cliche it comes out like a 12 year old kid making their first attempt. Or Dan Brown's latest "blockbuster".

Needs so much editing you might as well write it from scratch. It's not really creating anything new, just repeating everything else.

Likewise I think other software that seems to think in the fly but maybe is just going through preset possibilities.

It's not mimicking, its predicting what is most likely to follow every word and character it writes based on its training and using various logic engines to make sure what it's saying makes sense.

 

[exoplanet]

We have Expert Systems capable of making accurate medical diagnosis. We have Expert Systems capable of flying aircraft and spacecraft. We have Expert Systems doing a wide variety of complex tasks, and none of them are AI. Expert Systems are when the programmer(s) write their expertise into a form that the computer can calculate. It is therefore not the expertise of the computer, but the expertise of the programmer(s) involved.

AI is absolutely capable of providing its own expertise . Look at AlphaGo Zero:

The neural network initially knew nothing about Go beyond the rules. Unlike earlier versions of AlphaGo, Zero only perceived the board's stones, rather than having some rare human-programmed edge cases to help recognize unusual Go board positions. The AI engaged in reinforcement learning, playing against itself until it could anticipate its own moves and how those moves would affect the game's outcome.[9] In the first three days AlphaGo Zero played 4.9 million games against itself in quick succession.[10] It appeared to develop the skills required to beat top humans within just a few days

Its programmers didn't need to know anything about Go besides the rules. No knowledge of strategy. No expertise. AlphaGo didn't rely on brute forcing X number of moves forward like Deep Blue either. It learned and taught itself actual strategies. In fact, the best human players are now learning those strategies from AlphaGo. So it has come to actual new insights on its own.