AI is ridiculous concept that many misinterpret.

If that was all the Brain was then you would be right. I think, I Experience Redness, I feel Pain, I feel Pleasure, I can be Happy, I can be Angry etc. ...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I appreciate Music. It is a hobby and at one point it was even a business for me. Music can calm you down or it can lift you up. But for me the true enjoyment and obsession with Music has nothing to do with anything so crude as Mathematics. It is a Pure Conscious Mind Experience. The Enjoyment is unexplainable using Mathematics.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Looks like the failure of AI to live up to the the Hype of the last 10 years has finally caught up with it, if you are saying that is the New definition for AI. Forget Face Recognition, Speech Recognition, Self Driving Cars, and etc.. It's now only about Adaptation. Ok, sorry to hear that. I worked on Adaptive Control system 20 years ago. Adaptation in Machines is nothing new.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Really, harmonics are only experienced by a conscious mind and have nothing to do with mathematics? Yes, why don't we just trash Pythagoras in the process of this discussion. Expand your horizons, man!

 

And therefore it is a disqualifying property....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes, my Experience of Music has nothing to do with Math. It is pure Conscious Experience. The Math exists in the Physical World of Vibrations and Pressure Waves. There is no Math in the Conscious World.

 

AI existed in Bubbles in the past that finally burst because of the Over Hyped marketing. It's apparently happening again.

 

No one denies that. It's just that none of that has to do with the topic, which is learning.

None of this has anything to do with the topic, which is learning.

 

We have a definition for learning. We observe an AI device meeting the criteria for learning.

We have a definition for thinking. We do not observe your lump of coal meeting the criteria for thinking.

(Note that we don't have to know the mechanism for how it's doing it to know that it's doing it or not. Again: opaquity)


Steve, that was a really inept attempt at forming a logical argument. If you want to be taken seriously, you'll have to do better than that.

 

It was actually so good that you had to resort to Insults. Computers do not Think any more than the lump of Coal can Think. Neural Nets or anything else in a Computer can not Think.

In the case of Learning I would say that there is no Learning without Knowing that there is Learning. The Machine never is Aware of Learning. The Machine is merely Calibrating or Configuring, but it is not really Learning in the Human Brain sense of the word.

Like I have said before it is Ok to say that a Machine has Learned as long as you know what it is that the Machine is actually doing. It is very misleading Marketing for the average consumer reading about Machines Learning and Thinking in AI products. It leads to all kinds of Superstitions about Computers.

 

I have not insulted you.
I have commented on the quality of the words you posted. That's what a discussion is. Not all arguments are valid.

Ah. You've moved the goalposts.

You've moved from "computers don't think" to "computers don't think in the same way humans think".

Which no one disagrees with.

 

For clarity:

Learning

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning

 

And that settles that!

 

It is the agreed upon definition. Do you see something different?

 

I see that all real Dictionaries define Learning as a Human act. People apply the term to Machines as a shorthand. I'm just trying to show that there is a distinct difference between Human Learning and Machine Learning. A Machine does not ever desire to Learn and does not Know that it Learned even after the Neural Net is configured. There's nobody home. But this is not what AI Marketers want you to believe.

 

Perfect. We all agree that - when computers think and learn - it is not in the same way humans do.

 

OK, you have changed your stance to agree with what the rest of us have been saying all along.

"AI Marketers hate this one weird trick discovered by a 40-year-old single mother! Get yours before this is banned!"

Oh come on.


What you really mean is: you read about AI and blew it up into this huge utopian expectation of robot servants, and now you're older and wiser and see that it was naive, but feel resentful that you were taken in as a child.

No one else (except TV show writers) believes robot nurse maids are just around the corner.

 

Functionally, that's all the brain is.

Yep. Isn't it cool that you can do all that with a neural net?

 

Merriam-Webster:
Learning
1: the act or experience of one that learns
2: knowledge or skill acquired by instruction or study
3: modification of a behavioral tendency by experience

Dictionary.com:
Learning
-the act or process of acquiring knowledge or skill.
-knowledge acquired by systematic study in any field of scholarly application.
-the modification of behavior through practice, training, or experience.
-something that is learned through education or experience.

Oxford Dictionary (via Lexico)

Learning
1. The acquisition of knowledge or skills through study, experience, or being taught.
1.1 Knowledge acquired through study, experience, or being taught.
1.2 A thing learned by experience; a lesson.

No mention of humans.

In methodology - yes. Different techniques for training.

Many people do not ever desire to learn.

 

I think I see the problem here.

Imagine an Apollo engineer claiming "rocket boosters can NEVER LAND THEMSELVES! It's out of the question! Why, the very definition of 'staging' is that you DISCARD the stage. You don't use it again!"

And he would be right - in his era. He is incorrect today.