It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
How do mutations code sequence to symbols?
page: 5share:
originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: neoholographic
The word "appearance" is doing all the work here. Dawkins goes on to explain that that appearance is illusory - it is not designed and has no purpose other than what WE give it.
Stubborn subjectivity is not the answer. Regardless of any purpose we "give" to gravity, it still perpetuates at a predictable rate. We didn't contrive gravity with our imagination, we identified the acceleration rate that this intelligible law imposes on objects on earth. Anything that acts according to mathematical predictability by definition has an objective truth to it... these Laws were implemented by something Intelligent.
originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: neoholographic
So we can quantify intelligence.
No, we really cannot. And you just spent several sentences showing why.
IQ actually has an absurd definition: IQ is the 'thing' that IQ tests measure.
Psychologists have spent lifetimes trying to figure out something better. Standardized tests measure something, maybe, but nobody knows what that is. I'm not saying they are useless or dangerous - I'm saying they don't have much to do with anything really outside of identifying extreme outliers in very large cultural groups.
A famous children's IQ test had you look at 5 or 6 drawings of men doing things, and asked to identify the one that showed a man working. Several kids at one (predominately black) school lost points for their answer. They were expected to answer 'the one with the man at the desk writing', but they answered 'the one playing baseball'. Their dad's were professional baseball players and that was their experience of men working. That test was in vogue for years (I think I took it as a kid), and those and similar questions did contribute to papers that held that black kids were less intelligent that white kids.
Cultural and societal norms have a huge impact on how intelligence is perceived. Standardized tests cannot possibly capture a 'standard' reference value for some vaguely understood concept we call IQ. You need a customized test for every one on the planet, or certainly for every cultural group on the planet. And then you would need a way to calibrate each of those tests.
'Quantify Intelligence'? Its beyond absurd.
Yes we can and your asinine response shows why.
I didn't say the IQ test were perfect but it does quantify intelligence. The example you quoted is a subjective general knowledge question and has nothing to do with intelligence. I have never seen a question like that on an IQ test. When was this, 1960?
We quantify intelligence not by general knowledge questions but finding out how fast and accurately a person can make correlations in the data. This is why we have artificial INTELLIGENCE. What do you think A.I. does? We need A.I. to find correlations in the data because of big data. Here's some facts about big data.
Data volumes have skyrocketed. More data was generated in the last two years than in the entire human history before that.
Big data holds the key to an amazing future. It reveals patterns and connections that significantly improve our lives. Secure self-driving cars, more effective medical treatments, even reliable weather forecasts that will allow farmers to get better yields!
Each minute, 300 new hours of video show up on YouTube. That’s why there are more than 1 billion gigabytes (1 exabyte) of data on its servers!
People share more than 100 terabytes of data on Facebook daily. Every minute, users send 31 million messages and view 2.7 million videos.
The amount of data created each year is growing faster than ever before. By 2020, every human on the planet will be creating 1.7 megabytes of information… each second!
Surprisingly, 99.5% of collected data never gets used or analyzed. So much potential wasted!
hostingtribunal.com...
That last one is why we need Artificial Intelligence. We're creating too much data for humans to analyze and there's a treasur trove of knowledge which includes new technologies and new scientific discoveries by finding correlations in the data. This is how we quantify intelligence. The faster you can find patterns and correlations in the data, the more intelligent you are. In most IQ test, you see questions like these:
1. If you rearrange the letters "CARACTTIN" you have the name of a(n):
A. Continent
B. City
C. Ocean
D. Animal
2. What is the next number in the series:
7, 10, 16, 28, 52, ___
A. 88
B. 100
C. 66
3. If the first two statements are true, is the final statement true?
Mrs. Jones is responsible for collecting all of the fifth grade classes’ money for the school fundraiser.
Sally attends Mrs. Jones’ school.
Mrs. Jones is responsible for collecting Sally’s money for the fundraiser.
A. Yes
B. No
C. Uncertain
4. What is the missing number in the series:
3, 9, 81, 15, 21, 71, __ , 33, 61
A. 56
B. 22
C. 27
5. Which of the following can be arranged into a 5-letter English word?
A. H R G S T
B. R I L S A
C. T O O M T
D. W Q R G S
These are not general knowledge questions but how accurately you can find correlations in the data. That's how we quantify intelligence not the asinine question you gave as an example that I have never seen on an IQ test and it shouldn't be on one.
Here's an example of why it's called Artificial "Intelligence."
Using artificial intelligence to predict which women will develop breast cancer
Artificial intelligence applications have made inroads to medical diagnostics in recent years—they can be trained to look for cancer or other conditions by training them on thousands of examples. Once trained, many have demonstrated good performance in real-world applications.
medicalxpress.com...
The system looked at thousands of mammograms of women who eventually developed breast cancer and looked for correlations in the data to predict when women will develop breast cancer. That's how we quantify intelligence.
edit on 1-2-2021 by neoholographic because: (no reason
given)
a reply to: neoholographic
Finding corelations in data is not intelligence. We can create things to process data that doesnt mean anything as far as intelligence. It does take intelligence to make these things but the real brains was inventing computer code. Computers are not smart they process data according to the rules we designed namely binary code. We cn use this binary code not just in computers and still do calculations. So its the code design that we created or more that we gave meaning to. Here is something which may blow yor mind a computer that uses marbles.
Finding corelations in data is not intelligence. We can create things to process data that doesnt mean anything as far as intelligence. It does take intelligence to make these things but the real brains was inventing computer code. Computers are not smart they process data according to the rules we designed namely binary code. We cn use this binary code not just in computers and still do calculations. So its the code design that we created or more that we gave meaning to. Here is something which may blow yor mind a computer that uses marbles.
a reply to: dragonridr
Yes, finding correlations in the data is how we quantify intelligence. Have you ever taken an IQ test? Do I have to post sample questions again?
It's not about general knowledge but finding correlations in a dataset. This is exactly what we see with things like artificial intelligence and machine learning. Like I said it's about finding correlations in big data sets. In fact, some machine learning algorithms didn't even work until they were fed big data.
The core of machine learning consists of self-learning algorithms that evolve by continuously improving at their assigned task. When structured correctly and fed proper data, these algorithms eventually produce results in the contexts of pattern recognition and predictive modeling.
For machine-learning algorithms, data is like exercise: the more the better. Algorithms fine-tune themselves with the data they train on in the same way Olympic athletes hone their bodies and skills by training every day.
Data consists of numbers, words, measurements and observations formatted in ways computers can process. Big data refers to vast sets of that data, either structured or unstructured.
Machine-learning algorithms become more effective as the size of training datasets grows. So when combining big data with machine learning, we benefit twice: the algorithms help us keep up with the continuous influx of data, while the volume and variety of the same data feeds the algorithms and helps them grow.
blog.udacity.com...
This is how a system can learn to play a game without any instructions. It finds correlations in the data as it plays. It learns that if I hit the ball at this angle, x will happen. So it learns without being told how to play.
This isn't a remarkable statement, it's basic common sense. How can a machine learn on unstructured datasets without making correlations in the data?
Have you ever built a neural network?
Take a simple neural network that learns to identify cat pictures. Here, you give the network a target and it learns by matching the picture with the target and makes correlations in the data through a backpropagation algorithm. So at first it may get 10% right when you feed it pictures of cats and dogs but overtime it learns how to identify more cats and get to a 90% success rate.
So if intelligence isn't finding correlations in the data then what is it?
This is how we quantify intelligence. We can't quantify consciousness or awareness of consciousness but we can quantify intelligence.
4. What is the missing number in the series:
3, 9, 81, 15, 21, 71, __ , 33, 61
A. 56
B. 22
C. 27
Again, on this sample IQ test question, you're looking finding the pattern, then making correlations in the data then learning from those correlations.
So again I ask, if we don't quantify intelligence based on how a system finds correlations in the data then what is intelligence? How can you have intelligence without the ability to find correlations in the data? The better you are at finding correlations in the data, the more intelligent you are because you can learn more in a dataset whether that dataset is music or physics. This is why Mozart and Einstein can take the same IQ test. This is because you're seeing how well they can make correlations in the data not how much they know about physics or music.
Yes, finding correlations in the data is how we quantify intelligence. Have you ever taken an IQ test? Do I have to post sample questions again?
It's not about general knowledge but finding correlations in a dataset. This is exactly what we see with things like artificial intelligence and machine learning. Like I said it's about finding correlations in big data sets. In fact, some machine learning algorithms didn't even work until they were fed big data.
The core of machine learning consists of self-learning algorithms that evolve by continuously improving at their assigned task. When structured correctly and fed proper data, these algorithms eventually produce results in the contexts of pattern recognition and predictive modeling.
For machine-learning algorithms, data is like exercise: the more the better. Algorithms fine-tune themselves with the data they train on in the same way Olympic athletes hone their bodies and skills by training every day.
Data consists of numbers, words, measurements and observations formatted in ways computers can process. Big data refers to vast sets of that data, either structured or unstructured.
Machine-learning algorithms become more effective as the size of training datasets grows. So when combining big data with machine learning, we benefit twice: the algorithms help us keep up with the continuous influx of data, while the volume and variety of the same data feeds the algorithms and helps them grow.
blog.udacity.com...
This is how a system can learn to play a game without any instructions. It finds correlations in the data as it plays. It learns that if I hit the ball at this angle, x will happen. So it learns without being told how to play.
This isn't a remarkable statement, it's basic common sense. How can a machine learn on unstructured datasets without making correlations in the data?
Have you ever built a neural network?
Take a simple neural network that learns to identify cat pictures. Here, you give the network a target and it learns by matching the picture with the target and makes correlations in the data through a backpropagation algorithm. So at first it may get 10% right when you feed it pictures of cats and dogs but overtime it learns how to identify more cats and get to a 90% success rate.
So if intelligence isn't finding correlations in the data then what is it?
This is how we quantify intelligence. We can't quantify consciousness or awareness of consciousness but we can quantify intelligence.
4. What is the missing number in the series:
3, 9, 81, 15, 21, 71, __ , 33, 61
A. 56
B. 22
C. 27
Again, on this sample IQ test question, you're looking finding the pattern, then making correlations in the data then learning from those correlations.
So again I ask, if we don't quantify intelligence based on how a system finds correlations in the data then what is intelligence? How can you have intelligence without the ability to find correlations in the data? The better you are at finding correlations in the data, the more intelligent you are because you can learn more in a dataset whether that dataset is music or physics. This is why Mozart and Einstein can take the same IQ test. This is because you're seeing how well they can make correlations in the data not how much they know about physics or music.
edit on 1-2-2021 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)
a reply to: neoholographic
Your under the impression that intelligence is being able to manipulate data. Ill say this computers surpass human brain only in a rational/algorithmic way. They can perform analaysis and math far better then us. It is interesting to point out that a general definition of intelligence and human intelligence is still a question of debate, since the pioneering works of Turing. yes the guy that invented the marble computer I showed you. Do you know how difficult it is to teach a computer to walk it cannot be done like we do it has to use counter weights to help the computer make adjustments. Our brain does this with out even a thought do you know your brain has to constantly reposition your body to maintain balance. Most animals can walk or run at birth not us however because of the difficulties involved. Also mankind can be creative we can see a problem and find a solution that is only limited by our creativity. There still isnt any computer that can beat the human brain it can process inpt such as visual and sound link those with memories even smells can cuse us to process information.
None of these things are even close to being achived in current AI work. Why? Its exceedingly difficult especially our abilities to even multitask. You can walk and chew gum at the same time. A computer simulates some of human abilities but massively fails in others. Currently computers are still at the stage where yes they can process data faster thn we can but they still are just a calculator and its the binary code written by man that gives the comuter its abilities in the first place. Having a machine simulate intelligence or aspects of it anyway doesnt prove its intelligent merely that humans have inginuity and can create tooos to help us. A computer is no different then a hammer or screwdriver its a tool we invented to help us.
By the way even animals can process more stimuli than a computer neurons are amazing. By some comparisons, human brains can process far more information than the fastest computers. ... Brains are also about 100,000 times more energy-efficient than computers as well. Computers are good in comparison logic but again thats not intelligence. If you make that argument you would have to claim an abacus is intelligent as well,
Your under the impression that intelligence is being able to manipulate data. Ill say this computers surpass human brain only in a rational/algorithmic way. They can perform analaysis and math far better then us. It is interesting to point out that a general definition of intelligence and human intelligence is still a question of debate, since the pioneering works of Turing. yes the guy that invented the marble computer I showed you. Do you know how difficult it is to teach a computer to walk it cannot be done like we do it has to use counter weights to help the computer make adjustments. Our brain does this with out even a thought do you know your brain has to constantly reposition your body to maintain balance. Most animals can walk or run at birth not us however because of the difficulties involved. Also mankind can be creative we can see a problem and find a solution that is only limited by our creativity. There still isnt any computer that can beat the human brain it can process inpt such as visual and sound link those with memories even smells can cuse us to process information.
None of these things are even close to being achived in current AI work. Why? Its exceedingly difficult especially our abilities to even multitask. You can walk and chew gum at the same time. A computer simulates some of human abilities but massively fails in others. Currently computers are still at the stage where yes they can process data faster thn we can but they still are just a calculator and its the binary code written by man that gives the comuter its abilities in the first place. Having a machine simulate intelligence or aspects of it anyway doesnt prove its intelligent merely that humans have inginuity and can create tooos to help us. A computer is no different then a hammer or screwdriver its a tool we invented to help us.
By the way even animals can process more stimuli than a computer neurons are amazing. By some comparisons, human brains can process far more information than the fastest computers. ... Brains are also about 100,000 times more energy-efficient than computers as well. Computers are good in comparison logic but again thats not intelligence. If you make that argument you would have to claim an abacus is intelligent as well,
edit
on 2/1/21 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)
a reply to: dragonridr
I noticed in your long winded diatribe you didn't answer the question.
So again I ask, if we don't quantify intelligence based on how a system finds correlations in the data then what is intelligence? How can you have intelligence without the ability to find correlations in the data?
Please answer the question.
Brains cannot use our intelligence to find correlations in data as it explodes. With the growth of big data, investments in artificial intelligence and machine learning has also exploded.
This is because w're generating so much data that we can't find correlations in all of the data. Again, if artificial intelligence doesn't find correlations in the data and learn from those correlations then what is artificial intelligence?
The problem here is you don't understand that artificial intelligence is intelligence minus consciousness and human intuition. This is how A.I. look at thousands of scans from patients who developed breast cancer and thousands of scans of people who didn't develop breasr cancer and look for correlations in the dats from the scans from those who developed breast cancer vs. those who didn't.
What you're saying is just golbledy gook. You said:
None of these things are even close to being achived in current AI work. Why? Its exceedingly difficult especially our abilities to even multitask. You can walk and chew gum at the same time. A computer simulates some of human abilities but massively fails in others. Currently computers are still at the stage where yes they can process data faster thn we can but they still are just a calculator and its the binary code written by man that gives the comuter its abilities in the first place.
This has nothing to do with artificial intelligence or why we need artificial intelligence. It does what humans can do when finding correlations in the data but humans can't handle the explosion of data.
Here's more:
ncube.com...
Again, you don't understand the basics like backpropagation algorithm or how nodes on a neural network gives weight to an outcome. So you think it's no different than a basic calculator which is asinine.
ncube.com...
Again, we can't see the patterns because there's too much data for humans to handle. So we need artificial INTELLIGENCE.
Here's another example:
No limit: AI poker bot is first to beat professionals at multiplayer game
www.nature.com...
Show me a calculater thaat can teach itself how to play poker, then beat some of the top poker players in the world.
Like humans, it makes correlations in datasets and learns from those correlations, it just needs more data than we do.
So again, answer the question please. I noticed you wouldn't answer simple questions in your debate with cooperton then you vanished. Here's the simple questions.
So again I ask, if we don't quantify intelligence based on how a system finds correlations in the data then what is intelligence? How can you have intelligence without the ability to find correlations in the data?
I noticed in your long winded diatribe you didn't answer the question.
So again I ask, if we don't quantify intelligence based on how a system finds correlations in the data then what is intelligence? How can you have intelligence without the ability to find correlations in the data?
Please answer the question.
Brains cannot use our intelligence to find correlations in data as it explodes. With the growth of big data, investments in artificial intelligence and machine learning has also exploded.
This is because w're generating so much data that we can't find correlations in all of the data. Again, if artificial intelligence doesn't find correlations in the data and learn from those correlations then what is artificial intelligence?
The problem here is you don't understand that artificial intelligence is intelligence minus consciousness and human intuition. This is how A.I. look at thousands of scans from patients who developed breast cancer and thousands of scans of people who didn't develop breasr cancer and look for correlations in the dats from the scans from those who developed breast cancer vs. those who didn't.
What you're saying is just golbledy gook. You said:
None of these things are even close to being achived in current AI work. Why? Its exceedingly difficult especially our abilities to even multitask. You can walk and chew gum at the same time. A computer simulates some of human abilities but massively fails in others. Currently computers are still at the stage where yes they can process data faster thn we can but they still are just a calculator and its the binary code written by man that gives the comuter its abilities in the first place.
This has nothing to do with artificial intelligence or why we need artificial intelligence. It does what humans can do when finding correlations in the data but humans can't handle the explosion of data.
Here's more:
The problem with big data is that there is too much of it. In the past, people tried to avoid formats like pictures, video, or voice because they couldn't do too much with it. There was only an additional cost of storing it.
Just think about the video surveillance in your local community. About 100 cameras operate 24/7, 365 days a year. That’s a total of 2400 hours of video footage every day. If a human was supposed to review this data for suspicious activity, it would take a team of 60 people. That’s simply not worth it economically.
This is where artificial intelligence and big data work together. The only way to efficiently deal with this amount of data is to manage it with data-scanning and to use AI software algorithms.
ncube.com...
Again, you don't understand the basics like backpropagation algorithm or how nodes on a neural network gives weight to an outcome. So you think it's no different than a basic calculator which is asinine.
Let's address how AI works when it is applied to Big Data.
Detecting anomalies - AI can analyze artificial intelligence data to detect unusual occurrences in the data. For example, having a network of sensors that have a predefined appropriate range. Anything outside of that range is an anomaly.
Probability of future outcome - Using known condition that has a certain probability of influencing the future outcome, AI can determine the likelihood of that outcome
AI can recognize patterns - AI can see patterns that humans don’t
Data Bars and Graphs - AI can look for patterns in bars and graphs that might stay undetected by human supervision.
ncube.com...
Again, we can't see the patterns because there's too much data for humans to handle. So we need artificial INTELLIGENCE.
Here's another example:
No limit: AI poker bot is first to beat professionals at multiplayer game
Pluribus teaches itself from scratch using a form of reinforcement learning similar to that used by DeepMind’s Go AI, AlphaZero. It starts off playing poker randomly and improves as it works out which actions win more money. After each hand, it looks back at how it played and checks whether it would have made more money with different actions, such as raising rather than sticking to a bet. If the alternatives lead to better outcomes, it will be more likely to choose theme in future.
By playing trillions of hands of poker against itself, Pluribus created a basic strategy that it draws on in matches. At each decision point, it compares the state of the game with its blueprint and searches a few moves ahead to see how the action played out. It then decides whether it can improve on it. And because it taught itself to play without human input, the AI settled on a few strategies that human players tend not to use.
www.nature.com...
Show me a calculater thaat can teach itself how to play poker, then beat some of the top poker players in the world.
Like humans, it makes correlations in datasets and learns from those correlations, it just needs more data than we do.
So again, answer the question please. I noticed you wouldn't answer simple questions in your debate with cooperton then you vanished. Here's the simple questions.
So again I ask, if we don't quantify intelligence based on how a system finds correlations in the data then what is intelligence? How can you have intelligence without the ability to find correlations in the data?
edit on 1-2-2021 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)
a reply to: neoholographic
I think are definititions of intelligent are quite different. You see intelligence as the ability to process information. I see intelligence as the ability to process data based off experience to predict the world around us.
Lets do a little thought experminent when you were growing up your first game you learned was probably something like chutes and ladders. This intruduced you to board games and taking turns. We could program a computer to learn how to play the game. Now your older we decide to move on to checkers youll learn to play in an hour or so. But are same computer that played chutes and ladders now needs months of programming so it can learn to play checkers. So now you being intelligent you mastered checkers i can teach you how to play chess again after about an hour you have the concept on how the game works. Took 2 years to program deep blue to play chess and learn.
Your example of poker that computer program has been worked on for years just to teach the computer to play poler. You could have never played poker in your life and i can teach you in a couple of hours. Now we can build easily off that and i can teach you gin rummy in an hour and i can build off that to teach you spades. Are computer is now years into catching up to you in something you learned in 1 day.
Now having said that will computers one day be intelligent sure we can teach them different parts of intelligence now. But they will always have difficulty with creativity, for example a murder mystery. You can read the book and figure out who did the murder before the end chapter a computer at least now is no where near this capability anytime in the near future. You can take experinces and apply them in ways a computer just cant even think of.
I think are definititions of intelligent are quite different. You see intelligence as the ability to process information. I see intelligence as the ability to process data based off experience to predict the world around us.
Lets do a little thought experminent when you were growing up your first game you learned was probably something like chutes and ladders. This intruduced you to board games and taking turns. We could program a computer to learn how to play the game. Now your older we decide to move on to checkers youll learn to play in an hour or so. But are same computer that played chutes and ladders now needs months of programming so it can learn to play checkers. So now you being intelligent you mastered checkers i can teach you how to play chess again after about an hour you have the concept on how the game works. Took 2 years to program deep blue to play chess and learn.
Your example of poker that computer program has been worked on for years just to teach the computer to play poler. You could have never played poker in your life and i can teach you in a couple of hours. Now we can build easily off that and i can teach you gin rummy in an hour and i can build off that to teach you spades. Are computer is now years into catching up to you in something you learned in 1 day.
Now having said that will computers one day be intelligent sure we can teach them different parts of intelligence now. But they will always have difficulty with creativity, for example a murder mystery. You can read the book and figure out who did the murder before the end chapter a computer at least now is no where near this capability anytime in the near future. You can take experinces and apply them in ways a computer just cant even think of.
a reply to: dragonridr
What is this gobbledy gook? I knew you wouldn't answer the question so let me repeat it.
So again I ask, if we don't quantify intelligence based on how a system finds correlations in the data then what is intelligence? How can you have intelligence without the ability to find correlations in the data?
This isn't an answer, it reads like a diatribe that would make Ted Kaczynski blush. you said
I think are definititions of intelligent are quite different. You see intelligence as the ability to process information. I see intelligence as the ability to process data based off experience to predict the world around us.
Didn't you read my posts about A.I. and big data and machine learning algorithms? Why do you think machine learning algorithms are working so well now? It's because of big data. I said intelligence sees patterns and can make correlations in the data and that's why you haven't answered the question because you know intelligence requires the ability to make correlations in the data which would make your last few posts a waste because you started off by saying this isn't intelligence.
So instead of answering the question, you posts these inane ramblings that have nothing to do with neural networks, intelligence, big data or algorithms just chutes and ladders. You said:
Your example of poker that computer program has been worked on for years just to teach the computer to play poler. You could have never played poker in your life and i can teach you in a couple of hours. Now we can build easily off that and i can teach you gin rummy in an hour and i can build off that to teach you spades. Are computer is now years into catching up to you in something you learned in 1 day.
Look at this gobbledy gook. All I can decipher is the first line and it's not true. Did you even bother to read what I posted the A.I. that played poker or watch the video? It says:
Pluribus teaches itself from scratch using a form of reinforcement learning similar to that used by DeepMind’s Go AI, AlphaZero. It starts off playing poker randomly and improves as it works out which actions win more money. After each hand, it looks back at how it played and checks whether it would have made more money with different actions, such as raising rather than sticking to a bet. If the alternatives lead to better outcomes, it will be more likely to choose theme in future.
Like I said, you don't know how these systems work so at least you can actually read and learn something before you post.
You said:
Your example of poker that computer program has been worked on for years just to teach the computer to play poler.
The first line from the article I posted says:
Pluribus teaches itself from scratch using a form of reinforcement learning similar to that used by DeepMind’s Go AI, AlphaZero. It starts off playing poker randomly and improves as it works out which actions win more money.
How do you teach the computer how to play poker when it teaches itself?
It does this through what's called reinforcement learning. It's a similar way we learn, the systems just require more data.
The system learns by playing trillions of games against itself. The A.I. isn't programmed how to play poker just like the other A.I. isn't programmed to play video games.
The systems plays against itself. It then looks for correlations between the hands it played against itself and the hands played by it's human opponent. When a human makes a play, it predicts how the game will play out based on the hands it played against itself. The more confident the system is the more it will bet. At the end of a session it plays more hands against itself to learn how it could have made more money. With reinforcement learning you give the system a goal like making a S100,000 or beating the high score in a game. Here's more:
By playing trillions of hands of poker against itself, Pluribus created a basic strategy that it draws on in matches. At each decision point, it compares the state of the game with its blueprint and searches a few moves ahead to see how the action played out. It then decides whether it can improve on it. And because it taught itself to play without human input, the AI settled on a few strategies that human players tend not to use.
WITHOUT HUMAN INPUT!
The humans don't program it's strategy or teach it how to play poker. Here's the question you keep avoiding.
So again I ask, if we don't quantify intelligence based on how a system finds correlations in the data then what is intelligence? How can you have intelligence without the ability to find correlations in the data?
Let me remind you what you said in your first post in this exchange:
Finding corelations in data is not intelligence.
So you can see why you haven't answered the simple questions:
So again I ask, if we don't quantify intelligence based on how a system finds correlations in the data then what is intelligence? How can you have intelligence without the ability to find correlations in the data?
Your whole premise is built on a lie and that's why your posts are all over the place.
What is this gobbledy gook? I knew you wouldn't answer the question so let me repeat it.
So again I ask, if we don't quantify intelligence based on how a system finds correlations in the data then what is intelligence? How can you have intelligence without the ability to find correlations in the data?
This isn't an answer, it reads like a diatribe that would make Ted Kaczynski blush. you said
I think are definititions of intelligent are quite different. You see intelligence as the ability to process information. I see intelligence as the ability to process data based off experience to predict the world around us.
Didn't you read my posts about A.I. and big data and machine learning algorithms? Why do you think machine learning algorithms are working so well now? It's because of big data. I said intelligence sees patterns and can make correlations in the data and that's why you haven't answered the question because you know intelligence requires the ability to make correlations in the data which would make your last few posts a waste because you started off by saying this isn't intelligence.
So instead of answering the question, you posts these inane ramblings that have nothing to do with neural networks, intelligence, big data or algorithms just chutes and ladders. You said:
Your example of poker that computer program has been worked on for years just to teach the computer to play poler. You could have never played poker in your life and i can teach you in a couple of hours. Now we can build easily off that and i can teach you gin rummy in an hour and i can build off that to teach you spades. Are computer is now years into catching up to you in something you learned in 1 day.
Look at this gobbledy gook. All I can decipher is the first line and it's not true. Did you even bother to read what I posted the A.I. that played poker or watch the video? It says:
Pluribus teaches itself from scratch using a form of reinforcement learning similar to that used by DeepMind’s Go AI, AlphaZero. It starts off playing poker randomly and improves as it works out which actions win more money. After each hand, it looks back at how it played and checks whether it would have made more money with different actions, such as raising rather than sticking to a bet. If the alternatives lead to better outcomes, it will be more likely to choose theme in future.
Like I said, you don't know how these systems work so at least you can actually read and learn something before you post.
You said:
Your example of poker that computer program has been worked on for years just to teach the computer to play poler.
The first line from the article I posted says:
Pluribus teaches itself from scratch using a form of reinforcement learning similar to that used by DeepMind’s Go AI, AlphaZero. It starts off playing poker randomly and improves as it works out which actions win more money.
How do you teach the computer how to play poker when it teaches itself?
It does this through what's called reinforcement learning. It's a similar way we learn, the systems just require more data.
The system learns by playing trillions of games against itself. The A.I. isn't programmed how to play poker just like the other A.I. isn't programmed to play video games.
The systems plays against itself. It then looks for correlations between the hands it played against itself and the hands played by it's human opponent. When a human makes a play, it predicts how the game will play out based on the hands it played against itself. The more confident the system is the more it will bet. At the end of a session it plays more hands against itself to learn how it could have made more money. With reinforcement learning you give the system a goal like making a S100,000 or beating the high score in a game. Here's more:
By playing trillions of hands of poker against itself, Pluribus created a basic strategy that it draws on in matches. At each decision point, it compares the state of the game with its blueprint and searches a few moves ahead to see how the action played out. It then decides whether it can improve on it. And because it taught itself to play without human input, the AI settled on a few strategies that human players tend not to use.
WITHOUT HUMAN INPUT!
The humans don't program it's strategy or teach it how to play poker. Here's the question you keep avoiding.
So again I ask, if we don't quantify intelligence based on how a system finds correlations in the data then what is intelligence? How can you have intelligence without the ability to find correlations in the data?
Let me remind you what you said in your first post in this exchange:
Finding corelations in data is not intelligence.
So you can see why you haven't answered the simple questions:
So again I ask, if we don't quantify intelligence based on how a system finds correlations in the data then what is intelligence? How can you have intelligence without the ability to find correlations in the data?
Your whole premise is built on a lie and that's why your posts are all over the place.
edit on 2-2-2021 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)
a reply to: neoholographic
It takes years to write the code you have to tell the computer the value of the cards you have to program its ability to bet you have to program the algorithm to learn. You have to program its ability to do comparitive math you have to program its ability to play odds. You really think they just said hey computer we want you to play poker?
Now how they get computers to learn is something called Nash equilibria. In a game you look for the optimum play. For example, the Nash equilibrium strategy for Rock-Paper-Scissors is to randomly pick Rock, Paper, or Scissors with equal probability. Against such a strategy, the best that an opponent can do in expectation is tie. What they do in poker is let the computer see the odds of a hand winning by having played millions of games it can calculate its odds of winning. What this does is it simulates intelligence well enough to win at games but the computer isnt making decisions.
Now the other problem you easily build off prior knowledge and can apply it. Like i was explaining i could teach you several card games in a day. Because each one builds off your knowledge. I dont have to reteach you everything like card values or suits even betting you can use your past knowledge to expand your abilities. Computers have to play millions of games and find Nash equilibria. And we have to program it to handle another game it cant as of yet anyway decide to learn something on its own. What your computers are doing is using math to simulate intelligence. to you it seems they are making choices because that is how you play the game. But what they are doing is using math to decide what to do next.
en.wikipedia.org...
It takes years to write the code you have to tell the computer the value of the cards you have to program its ability to bet you have to program the algorithm to learn. You have to program its ability to do comparitive math you have to program its ability to play odds. You really think they just said hey computer we want you to play poker?
Now how they get computers to learn is something called Nash equilibria. In a game you look for the optimum play. For example, the Nash equilibrium strategy for Rock-Paper-Scissors is to randomly pick Rock, Paper, or Scissors with equal probability. Against such a strategy, the best that an opponent can do in expectation is tie. What they do in poker is let the computer see the odds of a hand winning by having played millions of games it can calculate its odds of winning. What this does is it simulates intelligence well enough to win at games but the computer isnt making decisions.
Now the other problem you easily build off prior knowledge and can apply it. Like i was explaining i could teach you several card games in a day. Because each one builds off your knowledge. I dont have to reteach you everything like card values or suits even betting you can use your past knowledge to expand your abilities. Computers have to play millions of games and find Nash equilibria. And we have to program it to handle another game it cant as of yet anyway decide to learn something on its own. What your computers are doing is using math to simulate intelligence. to you it seems they are making choices because that is how you play the game. But what they are doing is using math to decide what to do next.
en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 2/2/21 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)
In order to learn of how we got here ... one must learn of how we leave.
To learn of the beginning... one must study the end.
To learn of life, we must study death.
As below, so above.
To learn of the beginning... one must study the end.
To learn of life, we must study death.
As below, so above.
originally posted by: MikhailBakunin
In order to learn of how we got here ... one must learn of how we leave.
To learn of the beginning... one must study the end.
To learn of life, we must study death.
As below, so above.
There is always a journey to take and there is always a final destination to reach. There is always an aim and there is always a focal point, good or bad. Because of where we want to get to, we mind not just our actions, but the reasons behind our actions also!
a reply to: dragonridr
First, I have to start where it ended. The questions are:
So again I ask, if we don't quantify intelligence based on how a system finds correlations in the data then what is intelligence? How can you have intelligence without the ability to find correlations in the data?
Let me remind you what you said in your first post in this exchange:
Finding corelations in data is not intelligence.
So you can see why you haven't answered the simple questions:
So again I ask, if we don't quantify intelligence based on how a system finds correlations in the data then what is intelligence? How can you have intelligence without the ability to find correlations in the data?
Your whole premise is built on a lie and that's why your posts are all over the place.
So you avoid the questions and then there's a bunch of inane ramblings with no evidence to support anything you're saying.
First, No Limit Hold'em Poker is an imperfect information game and this is why this was an important milestone for A.I. research. A game like Tic-Tac-Toe is a perfect information game. This means you know the state of the world(game) at all times because you can see where x's and o's have been played.
With No Limet Poker, you have imperfect information. So you can't teach the A.I. how to play Poker and know the state of the game at all times. It will never have perfect information about the state of the game because it will not know the cards it opponents have or when what cards have yet to be played will be played.
So the A.I. has to learn different strategies as it plays games against itself. It tries to predict what will be played and it has developed betting strategies that baffled the human players.
Of course they taught the system the rules of the game. It's not artificial magic, it's artificial intelligence. We can know all of the values in a deck of cards but we still have to learn the rules to play Gin Rummy or Spades. But the more we play the more we develop strategies that make us better players. The same with A.I.
Listen to the inventor of the A.I.
Start listening at 4:25. I say this for the benefit of other people because I can tell you don't care about facts, you just blindly don't answer simple questions then lie. Here's another one. You said:
What this does is it simulates intelligence well enough to win at games but the computer isnt making decisions.
Again, another lie because you don't try to learn you just keep posting your inane ramblings.
The system does make descisions. It makes decisions about what cards to play and how much or little to bet. One strategy it used against human players is that it would make huge overbets which threw players off. Listen to the poker player who played the A.I. talk about this in the video.
It would also make underbets where the humans thought it would make overbets.
These were decisions the A.I. made. The A.I. wasn't taugh any strategies. It came up with it's own strategies as it played trillions of hands against itself and then compared those hands to the way humans were playing.
Teaching A.I. how to play Tic-Tac-Toe or Chess is different because you're dealing with complete information. The A.I. can know every move that can be made in the game.
With no limit Poker there's like 10^160 possible states the player can face without knowing the state of the world after a move. After a move in checkers, you know the state of the world(checkerboard). So you have complete information about the world at all times.
With no limit Poker it's different. You always have incomplete information so you have to learn strategies to win. So again, you just lied because you don't bother to actually read what you're debating against, you just regurgitate the same lies.
Here's more:
Machines have already become smart enough to beat humans at other games such as chess and Go, but poker is more difficult because it’s a game with imperfect information. With chess and Go, each player can see the entire board, but with poker, players don’t get to see each other’s hands. Furthermore, the AI is required to correctly interpret misleading information and bluff in order to win – the latter being something that researchers are increasingly worried about as AI gets more tightly integrated with our world’s digital fabric.
“We didn’t tell Libratus how to play poker. We gave it the rules of poker and said ‘learn on your own’,” said Brown.
The bot started playing randomly but over the course of playing trillions of hands was able to refine its approach and arrive at a winning strategy.
For Sandholm, seeing Libratus win has induced a “proud parent feeling”.
“When I see the bot bluff the humans, I’m like, ‘I didn’t tell it to do that. I had no idea it was even capable of doing that.’ It’s satisfying to know I created something that can do that.”
www.fanaticalfuturist.com...
So you lied when you said:
What this does is it simulates intelligence well enough to win at games but the computer isnt making decisions.
It says:
It’s not all bad for Les and his team mates though, they get to split a $200,000 prize pot depending on how well they did relative to each other against Libratus. They’ve also learned from Libratus, thanks to the robot’s aggressive style of play that sees it make huge bets to win small prize pots.
Tell me, who made the decision to make huge bets to win small prize pots?
Again, I leave you with the simple questions I asked that you never answer because your whole premise is a lie.
So again I ask, if we don't quantify intelligence based on how a system finds correlations in the data then what is intelligence? How can you have intelligence without the ability to find correlations in the data?
Let me remind you what you said in your first post in this exchange:
Finding corelations in data is not intelligence.
So you can see why you haven't answered the simple questions:
So again I ask, if we don't quantify intelligence based on how a system finds correlations in the data then what is intelligence? How can you have intelligence without the ability to find correlations in the data?
First, I have to start where it ended. The questions are:
So again I ask, if we don't quantify intelligence based on how a system finds correlations in the data then what is intelligence? How can you have intelligence without the ability to find correlations in the data?
Let me remind you what you said in your first post in this exchange:
Finding corelations in data is not intelligence.
So you can see why you haven't answered the simple questions:
So again I ask, if we don't quantify intelligence based on how a system finds correlations in the data then what is intelligence? How can you have intelligence without the ability to find correlations in the data?
Your whole premise is built on a lie and that's why your posts are all over the place.
So you avoid the questions and then there's a bunch of inane ramblings with no evidence to support anything you're saying.
First, No Limit Hold'em Poker is an imperfect information game and this is why this was an important milestone for A.I. research. A game like Tic-Tac-Toe is a perfect information game. This means you know the state of the world(game) at all times because you can see where x's and o's have been played.
With No Limet Poker, you have imperfect information. So you can't teach the A.I. how to play Poker and know the state of the game at all times. It will never have perfect information about the state of the game because it will not know the cards it opponents have or when what cards have yet to be played will be played.
So the A.I. has to learn different strategies as it plays games against itself. It tries to predict what will be played and it has developed betting strategies that baffled the human players.
Of course they taught the system the rules of the game. It's not artificial magic, it's artificial intelligence. We can know all of the values in a deck of cards but we still have to learn the rules to play Gin Rummy or Spades. But the more we play the more we develop strategies that make us better players. The same with A.I.
Listen to the inventor of the A.I.
Start listening at 4:25. I say this for the benefit of other people because I can tell you don't care about facts, you just blindly don't answer simple questions then lie. Here's another one. You said:
What this does is it simulates intelligence well enough to win at games but the computer isnt making decisions.
Again, another lie because you don't try to learn you just keep posting your inane ramblings.
The system does make descisions. It makes decisions about what cards to play and how much or little to bet. One strategy it used against human players is that it would make huge overbets which threw players off. Listen to the poker player who played the A.I. talk about this in the video.
It would also make underbets where the humans thought it would make overbets.
These were decisions the A.I. made. The A.I. wasn't taugh any strategies. It came up with it's own strategies as it played trillions of hands against itself and then compared those hands to the way humans were playing.
Teaching A.I. how to play Tic-Tac-Toe or Chess is different because you're dealing with complete information. The A.I. can know every move that can be made in the game.
With no limit Poker there's like 10^160 possible states the player can face without knowing the state of the world after a move. After a move in checkers, you know the state of the world(checkerboard). So you have complete information about the world at all times.
With no limit Poker it's different. You always have incomplete information so you have to learn strategies to win. So again, you just lied because you don't bother to actually read what you're debating against, you just regurgitate the same lies.
Here's more:
Machines have already become smart enough to beat humans at other games such as chess and Go, but poker is more difficult because it’s a game with imperfect information. With chess and Go, each player can see the entire board, but with poker, players don’t get to see each other’s hands. Furthermore, the AI is required to correctly interpret misleading information and bluff in order to win – the latter being something that researchers are increasingly worried about as AI gets more tightly integrated with our world’s digital fabric.
“We didn’t tell Libratus how to play poker. We gave it the rules of poker and said ‘learn on your own’,” said Brown.
The bot started playing randomly but over the course of playing trillions of hands was able to refine its approach and arrive at a winning strategy.
For Sandholm, seeing Libratus win has induced a “proud parent feeling”.
“When I see the bot bluff the humans, I’m like, ‘I didn’t tell it to do that. I had no idea it was even capable of doing that.’ It’s satisfying to know I created something that can do that.”
www.fanaticalfuturist.com...
So you lied when you said:
What this does is it simulates intelligence well enough to win at games but the computer isnt making decisions.
It says:
It’s not all bad for Les and his team mates though, they get to split a $200,000 prize pot depending on how well they did relative to each other against Libratus. They’ve also learned from Libratus, thanks to the robot’s aggressive style of play that sees it make huge bets to win small prize pots.
Tell me, who made the decision to make huge bets to win small prize pots?
Again, I leave you with the simple questions I asked that you never answer because your whole premise is a lie.
So again I ask, if we don't quantify intelligence based on how a system finds correlations in the data then what is intelligence? How can you have intelligence without the ability to find correlations in the data?
Let me remind you what you said in your first post in this exchange:
Finding corelations in data is not intelligence.
So you can see why you haven't answered the simple questions:
So again I ask, if we don't quantify intelligence based on how a system finds correlations in the data then what is intelligence? How can you have intelligence without the ability to find correlations in the data?
edit on 2-2-2021 by neoholographic because: (no reason
given)
edit on 2-2-2021 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)
a reply to: neoholographic
I have given you many definitions you just choose to ignore it all but only one facit of it anyway
So lets try again
A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings—"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.
Judgment, otherwise called "good sense", "practical sense", "initiative", the faculty of adapting one's self to circumstances ... auto-critique.
It is a cognitive process. It gives humans the cognitive abilities to learn, form concepts, understand, and reason, including the capacities to recognize patterns, innovate, plan, solve problems, and employ language to communicate. Intelligence enables humans to experience and think.
See you can read a book and see with your mind the story unfold. A computer cannot because it doesnt have experiences in life to draw on for example if i say i was on a boat you know what a boat is. Now i say i was on a boat and we were marlin fishing. You will easily picture this i dont even have to tell you there was a fishing rod involved you knew that. A computer i can show it pictures of a boat but it still wouldnt understand what a boat is. It could link it to a difinition or a picture but it cant understand what it is. If i say the deck got really wet you know we are on the water on our boat. A computer would have no idea why the deck is wet cant even come up with a reason unless we tell the program how to respond.
A computer is not reading anything — not in the normal human sense of the verb 'to read'. It’s processing text. The symbols it’s processing are disconnected from experiences in the world. It has no memories on which to draw, no imagery, no understanding, no meaning residing behind the words it so rapidly flings around.Try this have google do a search for friends then go look at the pictures you get. All of them will have friends in the title. Where you i can show you pictures of say people playing basketball you would say they were friends.You have the ability to see a photo and garner all kinds of of information a compurter could not. You see sand for example you would think beach even though you cant see the ocean in the picture. You couls see a cooler and beers and know the were drinking. Computers are no where near this level of intelligence.
I all ready figured out im not going to get you to agree so im done arguing this. Will call an abacus intelligent and call it a day. Time to go play with my smart phone.
I have given you many definitions you just choose to ignore it all but only one facit of it anyway
So lets try again
A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings—"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.
Judgment, otherwise called "good sense", "practical sense", "initiative", the faculty of adapting one's self to circumstances ... auto-critique.
It is a cognitive process. It gives humans the cognitive abilities to learn, form concepts, understand, and reason, including the capacities to recognize patterns, innovate, plan, solve problems, and employ language to communicate. Intelligence enables humans to experience and think.
See you can read a book and see with your mind the story unfold. A computer cannot because it doesnt have experiences in life to draw on for example if i say i was on a boat you know what a boat is. Now i say i was on a boat and we were marlin fishing. You will easily picture this i dont even have to tell you there was a fishing rod involved you knew that. A computer i can show it pictures of a boat but it still wouldnt understand what a boat is. It could link it to a difinition or a picture but it cant understand what it is. If i say the deck got really wet you know we are on the water on our boat. A computer would have no idea why the deck is wet cant even come up with a reason unless we tell the program how to respond.
A computer is not reading anything — not in the normal human sense of the verb 'to read'. It’s processing text. The symbols it’s processing are disconnected from experiences in the world. It has no memories on which to draw, no imagery, no understanding, no meaning residing behind the words it so rapidly flings around.Try this have google do a search for friends then go look at the pictures you get. All of them will have friends in the title. Where you i can show you pictures of say people playing basketball you would say they were friends.You have the ability to see a photo and garner all kinds of of information a compurter could not. You see sand for example you would think beach even though you cant see the ocean in the picture. You couls see a cooler and beers and know the were drinking. Computers are no where near this level of intelligence.
I all ready figured out im not going to get you to agree so im done arguing this. Will call an abacus intelligent and call it a day. Time to go play with my smart phone.
a reply to: dragonridr
Everything you say has nothing to do with any evidence presented. It's just vacuous nonsense without a shred of evidence. You said:
A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings—"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.
What in the world does this nonsense mean? It's pure babble.
You said:
Finding corelations in data is not intelligence.
I then asked.
So again I ask, if we don't quantify intelligence based on how a system finds correlations in the data then what is intelligence? How can you have intelligence without the ability to find correlations in the data?
You haven't answered a simple question because you know your first statement was a lie. So now you obfuscate with gobbledy gook that makes no sense.
Just listen to this:
Judgment, otherwise called "good sense", "practical sense", "initiative", the faculty of adapting one's self to circumstances ... auto-critique. It is a cognitive process. It gives humans the cognitive abilities to learn, form concepts, understand, and reason, including the capacities to recognize patterns, innovate, plan, solve problems, and employ language to communicate. Intelligence enables humans to experience and think.
LOL!
At least you're providing some comedy. You can't just say "I was wrong" so you think people will read a convoluted word salad and forget it has nothing to do with the debate.
I have to do one more:
See you can read a book and see with your mind the story unfold. A computer cannot because it doesnt have experiences in life to draw on for example if i say i was on a boat you know what a boat is.
WHAT??????
All of this nonsense because you don't want to say you were wrong when you made this statement.
Finding corelations in data is not intelligence.
I then simply asked:
So again I ask, if we don't quantify intelligence based on how a system finds correlations in the data then what is intelligence? How can you have intelligence without the ability to find correlations in the data?
Wow, just wow!
Everything you say has nothing to do with any evidence presented. It's just vacuous nonsense without a shred of evidence. You said:
A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings—"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.
What in the world does this nonsense mean? It's pure babble.
You said:
Finding corelations in data is not intelligence.
I then asked.
So again I ask, if we don't quantify intelligence based on how a system finds correlations in the data then what is intelligence? How can you have intelligence without the ability to find correlations in the data?
You haven't answered a simple question because you know your first statement was a lie. So now you obfuscate with gobbledy gook that makes no sense.
Just listen to this:
Judgment, otherwise called "good sense", "practical sense", "initiative", the faculty of adapting one's self to circumstances ... auto-critique. It is a cognitive process. It gives humans the cognitive abilities to learn, form concepts, understand, and reason, including the capacities to recognize patterns, innovate, plan, solve problems, and employ language to communicate. Intelligence enables humans to experience and think.
LOL!
At least you're providing some comedy. You can't just say "I was wrong" so you think people will read a convoluted word salad and forget it has nothing to do with the debate.
I have to do one more:
See you can read a book and see with your mind the story unfold. A computer cannot because it doesnt have experiences in life to draw on for example if i say i was on a boat you know what a boat is.
WHAT??????
All of this nonsense because you don't want to say you were wrong when you made this statement.
Finding corelations in data is not intelligence.
I then simply asked:
So again I ask, if we don't quantify intelligence based on how a system finds correlations in the data then what is intelligence? How can you have intelligence without the ability to find correlations in the data?
Wow, just wow!
a reply to: neoholographic
Those are definitions provided by psychology. If its beyond your understanding or level of intelligence i cant help you. People who have tha ability to comprehend what they read will understand the definitions. You apparently can not understand there is more to intelligence then making correlations in data. Any program on any computer can be used to compare data in registers.
Ive shown you what you believe is intelligence is actually a math problem called Nash equilibrium. Computer simulate parts of intelligence because we program them to seem that way. Obviously it fools some people more than others. Since i think we are running into the Dunning Kruger effect here i see having a discussion with you is useless. You are invested in your beliefs and nothing is going to get you to understand.
Those are definitions provided by psychology. If its beyond your understanding or level of intelligence i cant help you. People who have tha ability to comprehend what they read will understand the definitions. You apparently can not understand there is more to intelligence then making correlations in data. Any program on any computer can be used to compare data in registers.
Ive shown you what you believe is intelligence is actually a math problem called Nash equilibrium. Computer simulate parts of intelligence because we program them to seem that way. Obviously it fools some people more than others. Since i think we are running into the Dunning Kruger effect here i see having a discussion with you is useless. You are invested in your beliefs and nothing is going to get you to understand.
edit on 2/3/21 by
dragonridr because: (no reason given)
a reply to: dragonridr
It's just a word salad you copied because you're trying to obfuscate the fact you lied in your initial statement and you simply can't say "I was wrong."
Finding corelations in data is not intelligence.
So you can see why you haven't answered the simple questions:
So again I ask, if we don't quantify intelligence based on how a system finds correlations in the data then what is intelligence? How can you have intelligence without the ability to find correlations in the data?
Sadly for you, when you blindly post word salad definitions, it looks asinine. For instance you said:
"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.
A lot of people mix consciousness and awareness with intelligence. This is not how we quantify intelligence. It's called artificial intelligence not artificial consciousness or awareness.
Intelligence doesn't try to make sense of the world, consciousness does after it sees correlations in the data.
For instance, people made correlation in the data with their intelligence that they saw the sun in the day around the same time and the moon at night around the same time. To make sense of this correlation they said the gods were responsible and the sun travelled through the underworld at night.
This is how their consciousness made sense of things.
When you blindly copy and paste words salads you make no sense because you're trying to avoid your incorrect statement. You said:
Finding corelations in data is not intelligence.
This was just a flat out lie and your convoluted posts are all a result of you trying to avoid saying "I was wrong." It's actually funny and sad at the same time because it illustrates how people hang onto the lie that is a natural interpretation of evolution with these nonsensical word salads.
We don't use intelligence to make sense of things. Making sense of things is subjective and is in the domain of consciousness. Artificial Intelligence is not trying to make sense of Poker. It doesn't even know it's playing poker. It behaves intelligently and learns because of the imperfect information algorithms used by the designer of the A.I.
So the A.I. isn't trying to make sense of why it overbets low pots. It's just an intelligent strategy to win in order to reach it's goal of winning. It doesn't know what winning is as it relates to making sense of things. Human consciousness might say "Is winning really that important", "Why do I have this drive to win? "Am I hurting people while I'm doing this?"
This is human consciosness trying to make sense of things. Intelligence just tries to make correlations in the data to find the best strategies to win. Again, this is why it's called Artificial Intelligence and not Artificial consciousness or awareness. We can quantify intelligence. We can't quantify consciousness or awareness.
Humans can make correlations in the data that's clouded by our consciousness. A woman in an abusive relationship can make sense of things by saying he hits me because he loves me and she stays in the relationship while everyone is telling her to leave.
Intelligence has nothing to do with this. With intelligence without consciousness or awareness, it's just finding patterns and making correlations in the data and learning from those correlations to find more patterns and make more correlations when looking through data.
This is why 10 people from 10 different fields can take the same IQ Test. It's not about how much knowledge they have but how fast and accurate they can find correlations in the data. That's how we quantify intelligence. We ask:
Which of the following can be arranged into a 5-letter English word?
A. H R G S T
B. R I L S A
C. T O O M T
D. W Q R G S
Anyone can figure out what to do but everyone will not find the right answers and some people will find the right answer in a few seconds while others will have to look at it for a longer period of time. This is how we quantify intellingce. It doesn't matter how you make sense of the 5 letter english words you find or what they mean to you. That has nothing to do with how we quantify intelligence.
This is also why researchers are worried about dumb A.I. You can have an A.I. that's more intelligent than any human but it's not conscious or aware that it's intelligent. It's just trying to reach it's goal. So in order to reach it's goal it concludes it needs to kill 1 million humans then it will find a way to kill 1 million humans. If we try to stop it, it will look for intelligent ways to reach it's goal.
A human might say, if we just kill a million humans, it will be easier to reach our goal but then you will have humans whose consciousness will say we can't do that and we need to look for other ways.
What I'm trying to get you to see, but you will not see because you don't want to simply say "I was wrong" , is that intelligence can be quantified and this is why machine learning and artificial intelligence is used to find correlations in big datasets that's too much data for us to handle.
When A.I. learns from experience, it has no idea what an experience is. It just has to find a strategy to outsmart it's opponent. So it learns from experience to win next time. That's intelligence. We can quantify that and build intelligent algorithms for this purpose. A human may learn from experience that it doesn't want to stay in that hotel again or they don't want to date people that are this way again. This is how we learn from experience because we also incorporate consciousness.
It's plain to see, but again you will not see it because you made this asinine comment:
Finding corelations in data is not intelligence.
That was a lie and that's why you use these inane word salads instead of answering these simple questions.
So again I ask, if we don't quantify intelligence based on how a system finds correlations in the data then what is intelligence? How can you have intelligence without the ability to find correlations in the data?
It's just a word salad you copied because you're trying to obfuscate the fact you lied in your initial statement and you simply can't say "I was wrong."
Finding corelations in data is not intelligence.
So you can see why you haven't answered the simple questions:
So again I ask, if we don't quantify intelligence based on how a system finds correlations in the data then what is intelligence? How can you have intelligence without the ability to find correlations in the data?
Sadly for you, when you blindly post word salad definitions, it looks asinine. For instance you said:
"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.
A lot of people mix consciousness and awareness with intelligence. This is not how we quantify intelligence. It's called artificial intelligence not artificial consciousness or awareness.
Intelligence doesn't try to make sense of the world, consciousness does after it sees correlations in the data.
For instance, people made correlation in the data with their intelligence that they saw the sun in the day around the same time and the moon at night around the same time. To make sense of this correlation they said the gods were responsible and the sun travelled through the underworld at night.
This is how their consciousness made sense of things.
When you blindly copy and paste words salads you make no sense because you're trying to avoid your incorrect statement. You said:
Finding corelations in data is not intelligence.
This was just a flat out lie and your convoluted posts are all a result of you trying to avoid saying "I was wrong." It's actually funny and sad at the same time because it illustrates how people hang onto the lie that is a natural interpretation of evolution with these nonsensical word salads.
We don't use intelligence to make sense of things. Making sense of things is subjective and is in the domain of consciousness. Artificial Intelligence is not trying to make sense of Poker. It doesn't even know it's playing poker. It behaves intelligently and learns because of the imperfect information algorithms used by the designer of the A.I.
So the A.I. isn't trying to make sense of why it overbets low pots. It's just an intelligent strategy to win in order to reach it's goal of winning. It doesn't know what winning is as it relates to making sense of things. Human consciousness might say "Is winning really that important", "Why do I have this drive to win? "Am I hurting people while I'm doing this?"
This is human consciosness trying to make sense of things. Intelligence just tries to make correlations in the data to find the best strategies to win. Again, this is why it's called Artificial Intelligence and not Artificial consciousness or awareness. We can quantify intelligence. We can't quantify consciousness or awareness.
Humans can make correlations in the data that's clouded by our consciousness. A woman in an abusive relationship can make sense of things by saying he hits me because he loves me and she stays in the relationship while everyone is telling her to leave.
Intelligence has nothing to do with this. With intelligence without consciousness or awareness, it's just finding patterns and making correlations in the data and learning from those correlations to find more patterns and make more correlations when looking through data.
This is why 10 people from 10 different fields can take the same IQ Test. It's not about how much knowledge they have but how fast and accurate they can find correlations in the data. That's how we quantify intelligence. We ask:
Which of the following can be arranged into a 5-letter English word?
A. H R G S T
B. R I L S A
C. T O O M T
D. W Q R G S
Anyone can figure out what to do but everyone will not find the right answers and some people will find the right answer in a few seconds while others will have to look at it for a longer period of time. This is how we quantify intellingce. It doesn't matter how you make sense of the 5 letter english words you find or what they mean to you. That has nothing to do with how we quantify intelligence.
This is also why researchers are worried about dumb A.I. You can have an A.I. that's more intelligent than any human but it's not conscious or aware that it's intelligent. It's just trying to reach it's goal. So in order to reach it's goal it concludes it needs to kill 1 million humans then it will find a way to kill 1 million humans. If we try to stop it, it will look for intelligent ways to reach it's goal.
A human might say, if we just kill a million humans, it will be easier to reach our goal but then you will have humans whose consciousness will say we can't do that and we need to look for other ways.
What I'm trying to get you to see, but you will not see because you don't want to simply say "I was wrong" , is that intelligence can be quantified and this is why machine learning and artificial intelligence is used to find correlations in big datasets that's too much data for us to handle.
When A.I. learns from experience, it has no idea what an experience is. It just has to find a strategy to outsmart it's opponent. So it learns from experience to win next time. That's intelligence. We can quantify that and build intelligent algorithms for this purpose. A human may learn from experience that it doesn't want to stay in that hotel again or they don't want to date people that are this way again. This is how we learn from experience because we also incorporate consciousness.
It's plain to see, but again you will not see it because you made this asinine comment:
Finding corelations in data is not intelligence.
That was a lie and that's why you use these inane word salads instead of answering these simple questions.
So again I ask, if we don't quantify intelligence based on how a system finds correlations in the data then what is intelligence? How can you have intelligence without the ability to find correlations in the data?
a reply to: neoholographic
Ok i will give this one last attempt.
AI is a specialist rather than a generalist we teach it to do a task through programing. However, even advanced systems such as voice assistants, autonomous vehicles and robots still have a long way to go to compete with the human brain. Intelligence is often defined as the ability to achieve goals in a wide range of environments. Today’s AI applications, however, always specialize in a given task. They solve problems based on rules established specifically for that task. So although a chess program may be able to continually optimize its game strategy, it would not be capable of driving a car.
What we are doing is setting it up to acompllish a task, In contrast, human beings are able to use their intelligence in a variety of contexts. Certain characteristics of our brains are very difficult to simulate. The human brain is extremely flexible and can adapt intuitively to unpredictable environments.
Intelligence is a survival skill what it does is gives something the ability to transfer knowledge and skills from one environment to another and to make decisions in a variety of contexts, even unfamiliar ones. Computers may get there one day with say quantum computers whos very nature will be more like how we think using neurons. But currently at best we have computers that simulate intelligence they make you beieve they are making decisions while playing chess. Even your comparitive analysis of information they are comparing what we tell them to. As of now those comparisons are weak at best. i could show you 3 pictures one with trees one of sand and one of a field with flowers.
Now you can use your intelligence to answer questions a computer never would,for example Where one of these places would you find a bear? Which one is near the ocean? Which one would likely have bees? For you this is simple for a computer its impossible. Computers need tons of labeled data for comparison. For example if i said we want a computer to recognize cats in pictures. We can teach it to look for nose or its ears maybe its whiskers. But now we have a picture with a kitten and his head is in a boot. You know its a kitten computer misses it.
When computer hit the point where they can predict our needs and apply their knowlege to any situation they will be intelligent until then they are still just calculators. We may someday achieve hard IA but we arent there yet.
Ok i will give this one last attempt.
AI is a specialist rather than a generalist we teach it to do a task through programing. However, even advanced systems such as voice assistants, autonomous vehicles and robots still have a long way to go to compete with the human brain. Intelligence is often defined as the ability to achieve goals in a wide range of environments. Today’s AI applications, however, always specialize in a given task. They solve problems based on rules established specifically for that task. So although a chess program may be able to continually optimize its game strategy, it would not be capable of driving a car.
What we are doing is setting it up to acompllish a task, In contrast, human beings are able to use their intelligence in a variety of contexts. Certain characteristics of our brains are very difficult to simulate. The human brain is extremely flexible and can adapt intuitively to unpredictable environments.
Intelligence is a survival skill what it does is gives something the ability to transfer knowledge and skills from one environment to another and to make decisions in a variety of contexts, even unfamiliar ones. Computers may get there one day with say quantum computers whos very nature will be more like how we think using neurons. But currently at best we have computers that simulate intelligence they make you beieve they are making decisions while playing chess. Even your comparitive analysis of information they are comparing what we tell them to. As of now those comparisons are weak at best. i could show you 3 pictures one with trees one of sand and one of a field with flowers.
Now you can use your intelligence to answer questions a computer never would,for example Where one of these places would you find a bear? Which one is near the ocean? Which one would likely have bees? For you this is simple for a computer its impossible. Computers need tons of labeled data for comparison. For example if i said we want a computer to recognize cats in pictures. We can teach it to look for nose or its ears maybe its whiskers. But now we have a picture with a kitten and his head is in a boot. You know its a kitten computer misses it.
When computer hit the point where they can predict our needs and apply their knowlege to any situation they will be intelligent until then they are still just calculators. We may someday achieve hard IA but we arent there yet.
a reply to: dragonridr
Again, what you're saying has nothing to do with A.I. or what intelligence is. You keep coming up with the same posts full of inane ramblings that have nothing to with your statement which was a lie.
It's funny how some people have message board egos and they can't say "I was wrong." So you post these diatribes that are just meaningless word salads. Let me remind you of what you said
Finding corelations in data is not intelligence
That was a lie and then I asked these questions.
So again I ask, if we don't quantify intelligence based on how a system finds correlations in the data then what is intelligence? How can you have intelligence without the ability to find correlations in the data?
To avoid saying "I was wrong." You have spent post after post filled with convoluted gobbledy gook. You said:
Intelligence is a survival skill what it does is gives something the ability to transfer knowledge and skills from one environment to another and to make decisions in a variety of contexts, even unfamiliar ones.
Again, this has nothing to do with how we quantify intelligence. Survival skills for humans involve intelligence, consciousness and awareness but it's not called artificial consciousness or artificial awareness. There are no survival skill questions on IQ tests. That's not how we quantify intelligence.
You keep saying this because you don't want to simply say "I was wrong."
I just saw a true crime show where a woman played dead to survive and the killer walked past her. This involved her intelligence, consciousness and awareness. This is human survival skills.
We're not talking about human survival skills but how we quantify intelligence without consciousness or awareness which we can't quantify. It's called artificial intelligence for a reason.
You keep coming up with these asinine word salads because you don't want to admit you were wrong. You keep saying things that involve intelligence, consciousness and awareness.
When questions are asked on an I.Q. rest, there about how we identify patterns and make correlations in the data. This quantify's intelligence. So a person who writes music and a Cosmologist can take the same I.Q. test. Here's sample questions:
3. If the first two statements are true, is the final statement true?
Mrs. Jones is responsible for collecting all of the fifth grade classes’ money for the school fundraiser.
Sally attends Mrs. Jones’ school.
Mrs. Jones is responsible for collecting Sally’s money for the fundraiser.
A. Yes
B. No
C. Uncertain
4. What is the missing number in the series:
3, 9, 81, 15, 21, 71, __ , 33, 61
A. 56
B. 22
C. 27
These questions aren't about survival skills or how a person makes sense of the world. These questions quantify how fast and accurate you are at making correlations in the data.
When you read.
3. If the first two statements are true, is the final statement true?
Mrs. Jones is responsible for collecting all of the fifth grade classes’ money for the school fundraiser.
Sally attends Mrs. Jones’ school.
Mrs. Jones is responsible for collecting Sally’s money for the fundraiser.
They want to see if you can correlate the data and see that the third statement is uncertain because you don't know what other grades are taught at Mrs. Jones school and you don't know if Sally is in the 5th grade.
It has nothing to do with survival skills or making sense of the world. These are things that involve intelligence, consciousness and awareness. We're just talking about intelligence.
You then make statements about A.I. that's just wrong. You bloviate about this because you don't want to say "I was wrong." You said:
Today’s AI applications, however, always specialize in a given task. They solve problems based on rules established specifically for that task. So although a chess program may be able to continually optimize its game strategy, it would not be capable of driving a car.
Humans specialize in specific tasks based on rules. You have humans that are computer programmers and humans that are brick layers. Again, you're talking about General Purpose A.I. which is a system that's has human like intelligence which includes are consciousness and awareness. The A.I. you see in sci-fi movies.
We're not talking about General Purpose A.I., we're talking about A.I. that finds correlations in big datasets. You said:
Now you can use your intelligence to answer questions a computer never would,for example Where one of these places would you find a bear? Which one is near the ocean? Which one would likely have bees? For you this is simple for a computer its impossible.
This is just a lie.
It would be easy to build an A.I. that can learn about geographical places and where you're likely to find certain animals or insects. That's child's play.
What an A.I. couldn't answer is, which of these places would be best for me to visit?
An A.I. can look at reviews and say based on reviews... but humans are more nuanced than that because of our awareness and consciousness. We talk to friends and relatives and look for activities so the best place for one person might not be the best for the next. They have A.I. recommendation engines but they still aren't better than asking humans questions because of all of the nuance and shades of grey in an answer that humans are consciously aware of but A.I. isn't. You said:
When computer hit the point where they can predict our needs and apply their knowlege to any situation they will be intelligent until then they are still just calculators.
This is just another lie.
First, A.I. has already reached the point where it can predict our needs. The recommendation engines at Netflix our powered by machine learning. They use machine learning to do everything and it makes them billions of dollars because they generate so much data.
Machine learning impacts many exciting areas throughout our company. Historically, personalization has been the most well-known area, where machine learning powers our recommendation algorithms. We’re also using machine learning to help shape our catalog of movies and TV shows by learning characteristics that make content successful. We use it to optimize the production of original movies and TV shows in Netflix’s rapidly growing studio. Machine learning also enables us to optimize video and audio encoding, adaptive bitrate selection, and our in-house Content Delivery Network that accounts for more than a third of North American internet traffic. It also powers our advertising spend, channel mix, and advertising creative so that we can find new members who will enjoy Netflix.
research.netflix.com...
The problem here is you don't know how to separate intelligence from consciousness and awareness. This is obvious because when you say predict our needs, you're talking about an artificial psychic that makes sense of the world and has survival skills. You're watching too many sci-fi movies.
Narrow A.I. is intelligent it's just not conscious or aware. These things are needed for A.I. that's humanlike which I don't think will happen because you can't quantify consciousness or awareness. That doesn't mean someone will not discover how to mimic consciousness and if a machine thinks it's conscious then essentially it is. You said:
Finding corelations in data is not intelligence. - a lie
Again, what you're saying has nothing to do with A.I. or what intelligence is. You keep coming up with the same posts full of inane ramblings that have nothing to with your statement which was a lie.
It's funny how some people have message board egos and they can't say "I was wrong." So you post these diatribes that are just meaningless word salads. Let me remind you of what you said
Finding corelations in data is not intelligence
That was a lie and then I asked these questions.
So again I ask, if we don't quantify intelligence based on how a system finds correlations in the data then what is intelligence? How can you have intelligence without the ability to find correlations in the data?
To avoid saying "I was wrong." You have spent post after post filled with convoluted gobbledy gook. You said:
Intelligence is a survival skill what it does is gives something the ability to transfer knowledge and skills from one environment to another and to make decisions in a variety of contexts, even unfamiliar ones.
Again, this has nothing to do with how we quantify intelligence. Survival skills for humans involve intelligence, consciousness and awareness but it's not called artificial consciousness or artificial awareness. There are no survival skill questions on IQ tests. That's not how we quantify intelligence.
You keep saying this because you don't want to simply say "I was wrong."
I just saw a true crime show where a woman played dead to survive and the killer walked past her. This involved her intelligence, consciousness and awareness. This is human survival skills.
We're not talking about human survival skills but how we quantify intelligence without consciousness or awareness which we can't quantify. It's called artificial intelligence for a reason.
You keep coming up with these asinine word salads because you don't want to admit you were wrong. You keep saying things that involve intelligence, consciousness and awareness.
When questions are asked on an I.Q. rest, there about how we identify patterns and make correlations in the data. This quantify's intelligence. So a person who writes music and a Cosmologist can take the same I.Q. test. Here's sample questions:
3. If the first two statements are true, is the final statement true?
Mrs. Jones is responsible for collecting all of the fifth grade classes’ money for the school fundraiser.
Sally attends Mrs. Jones’ school.
Mrs. Jones is responsible for collecting Sally’s money for the fundraiser.
A. Yes
B. No
C. Uncertain
4. What is the missing number in the series:
3, 9, 81, 15, 21, 71, __ , 33, 61
A. 56
B. 22
C. 27
These questions aren't about survival skills or how a person makes sense of the world. These questions quantify how fast and accurate you are at making correlations in the data.
When you read.
3. If the first two statements are true, is the final statement true?
Mrs. Jones is responsible for collecting all of the fifth grade classes’ money for the school fundraiser.
Sally attends Mrs. Jones’ school.
Mrs. Jones is responsible for collecting Sally’s money for the fundraiser.
They want to see if you can correlate the data and see that the third statement is uncertain because you don't know what other grades are taught at Mrs. Jones school and you don't know if Sally is in the 5th grade.
It has nothing to do with survival skills or making sense of the world. These are things that involve intelligence, consciousness and awareness. We're just talking about intelligence.
You then make statements about A.I. that's just wrong. You bloviate about this because you don't want to say "I was wrong." You said:
Today’s AI applications, however, always specialize in a given task. They solve problems based on rules established specifically for that task. So although a chess program may be able to continually optimize its game strategy, it would not be capable of driving a car.
Humans specialize in specific tasks based on rules. You have humans that are computer programmers and humans that are brick layers. Again, you're talking about General Purpose A.I. which is a system that's has human like intelligence which includes are consciousness and awareness. The A.I. you see in sci-fi movies.
We're not talking about General Purpose A.I., we're talking about A.I. that finds correlations in big datasets. You said:
Now you can use your intelligence to answer questions a computer never would,for example Where one of these places would you find a bear? Which one is near the ocean? Which one would likely have bees? For you this is simple for a computer its impossible.
This is just a lie.
It would be easy to build an A.I. that can learn about geographical places and where you're likely to find certain animals or insects. That's child's play.
What an A.I. couldn't answer is, which of these places would be best for me to visit?
An A.I. can look at reviews and say based on reviews... but humans are more nuanced than that because of our awareness and consciousness. We talk to friends and relatives and look for activities so the best place for one person might not be the best for the next. They have A.I. recommendation engines but they still aren't better than asking humans questions because of all of the nuance and shades of grey in an answer that humans are consciously aware of but A.I. isn't. You said:
When computer hit the point where they can predict our needs and apply their knowlege to any situation they will be intelligent until then they are still just calculators.
This is just another lie.
First, A.I. has already reached the point where it can predict our needs. The recommendation engines at Netflix our powered by machine learning. They use machine learning to do everything and it makes them billions of dollars because they generate so much data.
Machine learning impacts many exciting areas throughout our company. Historically, personalization has been the most well-known area, where machine learning powers our recommendation algorithms. We’re also using machine learning to help shape our catalog of movies and TV shows by learning characteristics that make content successful. We use it to optimize the production of original movies and TV shows in Netflix’s rapidly growing studio. Machine learning also enables us to optimize video and audio encoding, adaptive bitrate selection, and our in-house Content Delivery Network that accounts for more than a third of North American internet traffic. It also powers our advertising spend, channel mix, and advertising creative so that we can find new members who will enjoy Netflix.
research.netflix.com...
The problem here is you don't know how to separate intelligence from consciousness and awareness. This is obvious because when you say predict our needs, you're talking about an artificial psychic that makes sense of the world and has survival skills. You're watching too many sci-fi movies.
Narrow A.I. is intelligent it's just not conscious or aware. These things are needed for A.I. that's humanlike which I don't think will happen because you can't quantify consciousness or awareness. That doesn't mean someone will not discover how to mimic consciousness and if a machine thinks it's conscious then essentially it is. You said:
Finding corelations in data is not intelligence. - a lie
edit on 4-2-2021 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)
a reply to: neoholographic
Funny you actually proved my point and you dont even realize it.
When you asked this question
3. If the first two statements are true, is the final statement true?
Mrs. Jones is responsible for collecting all of the fifth grade classes’ money for the school fundraiser.
Sally attends Mrs. Jones’ school.
Mrs. Jones is responsible for collecting Sally’s money for the fundraiser.
A. Yes
B. No
C. Uncertain
Do you even know what the answer is? Here a computer would evaluate the given data and say yes. Except there is one key piece of information missing making the answer C. You know there is more than one grade in a school because of experience and you dont know what grade sally is in.
Your definition of intelligece is severely limited your doing this on purpose.
Here is websters
the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason also : the skilled use of reason. (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (such as tests).
Computers currently fail on both these definitions. So im done arguing now time to let this thread die we can revisit it in a decade or so and see where we are then. In the mean time to continue the argument over this is silly since it started in greek philosophy an arguing over Phronesis has been done for centuries.
Funny you actually proved my point and you dont even realize it.
When you asked this question
3. If the first two statements are true, is the final statement true?
Mrs. Jones is responsible for collecting all of the fifth grade classes’ money for the school fundraiser.
Sally attends Mrs. Jones’ school.
Mrs. Jones is responsible for collecting Sally’s money for the fundraiser.
A. Yes
B. No
C. Uncertain
Do you even know what the answer is? Here a computer would evaluate the given data and say yes. Except there is one key piece of information missing making the answer C. You know there is more than one grade in a school because of experience and you dont know what grade sally is in.
Your definition of intelligece is severely limited your doing this on purpose.
Here is websters
the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason also : the skilled use of reason. (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (such as tests).
Computers currently fail on both these definitions. So im done arguing now time to let this thread die we can revisit it in a decade or so and see where we are then. In the mean time to continue the argument over this is silly since it started in greek philosophy an arguing over Phronesis has been done for centuries.
new topics
-
The Looking Glass - Episode 3: The Path of Least Resistance
Short Stories: 1 hours ago -
Credit card debt
Relationships: 3 hours ago -
President-elect Trump asks the Supreme Court to Let Tik-Tok Continue Operating in the U.S..
Mainstream News: 3 hours ago -
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen Says The USA Will Be in Debt Default in Jan 2025 - Unless...
Mainstream News: 7 hours ago -
Trash To Treasure: Dumpster Diving With Mike The Scavenger
General Chit Chat: 8 hours ago -
Danish Prime Minister said to keep 3 days worth of canned goods on hand
World War Three: 8 hours ago -
The hunter has become the hunted
Politicians & People: 11 hours ago
top topics
-
The hunter has become the hunted
Politicians & People: 11 hours ago, 19 flags -
Well this is Awkward .....
Mainstream News: 17 hours ago, 17 flags -
Trump's idea to make Canada the 51st US state: 'Potential is massive'
Mainstream News: 12 hours ago, 13 flags -
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen Says The USA Will Be in Debt Default in Jan 2025 - Unless...
Mainstream News: 7 hours ago, 5 flags -
Danish Prime Minister said to keep 3 days worth of canned goods on hand
World War Three: 8 hours ago, 4 flags -
Trash To Treasure: Dumpster Diving With Mike The Scavenger
General Chit Chat: 8 hours ago, 3 flags -
Credit card debt
Relationships: 3 hours ago, 2 flags -
President-elect Trump asks the Supreme Court to Let Tik-Tok Continue Operating in the U.S..
Mainstream News: 3 hours ago, 1 flags -
The Looking Glass - Episode 3: The Path of Least Resistance
Short Stories: 1 hours ago, 1 flags
active topics
-
The Looking Glass - Episode 3: The Path of Least Resistance
Short Stories • 3 • : JJproductions -
Credit card debt
Relationships • 2 • : JJproductions -
Danish Prime Minister said to keep 3 days worth of canned goods on hand
World War Three • 5 • : DerBeobachter2 -
Trump's idea to make Canada the 51st US state: 'Potential is massive'
Mainstream News • 43 • : anned1 -
No Wonder We Are In Such INSANE Debt- Americans MUST Put a Stop to This
US Political Madness • 68 • : BernnieJGato -
President-elect Trump asks the Supreme Court to Let Tik-Tok Continue Operating in the U.S..
Mainstream News • 15 • : TheMisguidedAngel -
Elon Musk futurist?
Dreams & Predictions • 21 • : cherokeetroy -
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen Says The USA Will Be in Debt Default in Jan 2025 - Unless...
Mainstream News • 21 • : WeMustCare -
The hunter has become the hunted
Politicians & People • 13 • : 777Vader -
Encouraging News Media to be MAGA-PAF Should Be a Top Priority for Trump Admin 2025-2029.
Education and Media • 92 • : WeMustCare