IBM's Artificial Intelligence

[AustinB]

Very good watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibMWwzUdzDg

 

Thoughts?

TL;DW

Basically one of the IBM Employee's was watching jeopardy that was showcasing a player that had seventy plus wins in a row. The employee wanted to create something that could beat that player, pitching to his co-workers and superiors, only one of them was interested in taking on the project. They named the AI Wilson, the same name as the founder of IBM. Four years later  they took Wilson to audition for the show, it didn't turn out to well, but decent. The crew had a couple weeks to debug and improve the system, during that time Wilson made a great improvement. Getting on to the show dominating the other two opponents (the best players).

 

Note: Might have made some mistakes. 

[JAKEBAB]

Its 48 god damn minutes long.

[CatCloud]

I'll watch once I get home but first impression: hell yeah for AI!!

[VincentC]

It doesn't seem like AI to me, just pattern recognition of letters to form a string then querying a encyclopedia to find the answer. 

[Ian_Balisy]

It doesn't seem like AI to me, just pattern recognition of letters to form a string then querying a encyclopedia to find the answer. 

 

There are a number of studies on the human brain suggesting that we do a variation on exactly this same thing. It helps to be able to identify why we call something "intelligence" before defining something as "artificial intelligence." When a computer can understand all the symbols I am conveying (using all the senses and dealing with emotion, words, body language, etc.) and respond appropriately, I'd say that's artificial intelligence.

[captain cactus]

There are a number of studies on the human brain suggesting that we do a variation on exactly this same thing. It helps to be able to identify why we call something "intelligence" before defining something as "artificial intelligence." When a computer can understand all the symbols I am conveying (using all the senses and dealing with emotion, words, body language, etc.) and respond appropriately, I'd say that's artificial intelligence.

Even then it's not. Its response to those inputs are still coded by us puny humans. As soon as there is a thing/system/piece of software/hardware that is thought up, designed, produced, coded and tested 100% by another system without us humans telling the latter to do so and it works, then that system is AI. It can make up its own mind and make something useful for itself or for us. If you we have to be really anal about this stuff we can say no system that exists now or will ever exist is AI because the thing that made said system is somehow still made/programmed by humans. But yeah.

[Ian_Balisy]

Even then it's not. Its response to those inputs are still coded by us puny humans. As soon as there is a thing/system/piece of software/hardware that is thought up, designed, produced, coded and tested 100% by another system without us humans telling the latter to do so and it works, then that system is AI. It can make up its own mind and make something useful for itself or for us. If you we have to be really anal about this stuff we can say no system that exists now or will ever exist is AI because the thing that made said system is somehow still made/programmed by humans. But yeah.

Do you have a source for how you're defining AI? I'm always interested in what people consider to be the qualities necessary for such a definition. It seems to me the crux of your understanding comes down to the artificiality of the origination of intelligence, i.e. if a human was involved it cannot be deemed artificial intelligence. And true, by that definition nothing we create will be considered truly artificial intelligence. Does your definition stem from Asimov's interpretation by chance? That is one I've been fond of.

[coen113]

Its 48 god damn minutes long.

can we get a TL;DW?

[terrytek]

I actually watched the episode featuring Watson.

[captain cactus]

Do you have a source for how you're defining AI? I'm always interested in what people consider to be the qualities necessary for such a definition. It seems to me the crux of your understanding comes down to the artificiality of the origination of intelligence, i.e. if a human was involved it cannot be deemed artificial intelligence. And true, by that definition nothing we create will be considered truly artificial intelligence. Does your definition stem from Asimov's interpretation by chance? That is one I've been fond of.

Nope. Just came up with it myself. Any resemblance to any other source is coincidence.

[Nicolas]

Even then it's not. Its response to those inputs are still coded by us puny humans. As soon as there is a thing/system/piece of software/hardware that is thought up, designed, produced, coded and tested 100% by another system without us humans telling the latter to do so and it works, then that system is AI. It can make up its own mind and make something useful for itself or for us. If you we have to be really anal about this stuff we can say no system that exists now or will ever exist is AI because the thing that made said system is somehow still made/programmed by humans. But yeah.

If we build a machine that can do stuff without commands and come up with solutions to problems on it's own then that is AI

[BlankPursuit]

Call me old fashioned but I'm honestly against the development of AI. I just feel that with the creation of artificial intelligence makes us inferior. 

[Guest]

Fascinating stuff.

[kennethnakasone]

I felt so satisfied when Watson got that "Celebrations of the Month" question right.

[Ian_Balisy]

Nope. Just came up with it myself. Any resemblance to any other source is coincidence.

 

I would recommend looking into what Asimov said about AI, very interesting stuff. Close to what you're describing. Plus Asimov is just a fantastic read! 

[Dr_Orpington]

As far as I'm concerned, Wilson isn't AI because he isn't thinking on his own, he is just very well programed.