Talk:Artificial general intelligence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Robotics (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Artificial general intelligence is within the scope of WikiProject Robotics, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Robotics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page (Talk), where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
WikiProject Computing (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Software / Computing  (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
 
WikiProject Computer science (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Science Fiction (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Cognitive science (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cognitive science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cognitive science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

REFERENCES! what a mess.[edit]

There are really messed up references throughout the page. The style of citation here is inconsistent with WP as a whole and with other articles from respective projects. I'll slowly work on cleaning it up. Help is appreciated. Cliff (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I took a pass through and fixed a few things. I made sure that all the shortened footnotes were linked using the {{harv}} family of templates, and I found a number of citations that were missing or broken. There are still a large number of embedded links that should probably be fixed. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 10:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Good work, It looks a lot better. The notes section is quite large. Are all of these notes necessary? Which references are for which statements? I'm not used to a citation style like this. I'd like to help, but don't know what we're aiming for as far as style goes. Cliff (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
This appears to be the Clocksin 2003 reference: http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/361/1809/1721.short I haven't changed the article because I haven't read the paper yet. pgr94 (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

To reflect the importance of glial cells, especially astrocytes, to faithful simulation of the human brain, somebody (better oriented than me, that is) could cite some neurobiology articles describing tripartite synapses, for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.240.162.190 (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

IBM has developed a nanotechnology based working hardware implementation of a mammalian brain.[edit]

"Researchers at IBM have been working on a cognitive computing project called Systems of Neuromorphic Adaptive Plastic Scalable Electronics (SyNAPSE). By reproducing the structure and architecture of the brain—the way its elements receive sensory input, connect to each other, adapt these connections, and transmit motor output—the SyNAPSE project models computing systems that emulate the brain's computing efficiency, size and power usage without being programmed.

IBM is combining principles from nanoscience, neuroscience and super-computing as part of a multi-year cognitive computing initiative. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has awarded approximately US$21 million in new funding for phase 2 of the SyNAPSE project. For this project, a world-class, multi-dimensional team has been assembled, consisting of IBM researchers and collaborators from Columbia University; Cornell University; University of California, Merced; and University of Wisconsin-Madison." http://www.ibm.com/smarterplanet/us/en/business_analytics/article/cognitive_computing.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.56.170 (talk) 07:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing, verifiability, truth,and removing content[edit]

I don't see any compelling reason to remove the statement about misuse. If this were some controversial or questioned fact, getting specific sourcing might be good. There are/were sourcing issues with the article, but in general I don't think much of the content needs to be redacted for that. Probably better at the moment to work on getting better sources, then reworking the content based on those sources instead of just deleting content. If better sources can't be found in the long term, then the more dubious and trivial statements should be removed. aprock (talk) 19:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Sentient computers in science fiction[edit]

In the article on SF computers directs to that article, rather than this article.

Should there be a brief section in the Strong AI article on sentient computers in SF (who range from helpful to being contrary/patronising their human companions (their term for 'pets')?

Given the way some actual computers do #what they want# rather than what you tell them, many people would argue that the feeling that sentience is beginning to emerge is not just a pathetic fallacy. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this article should also cover the way the term is used in science fiction. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
There is a fairly clear distinction between 'sentient robots' (including androids, gynoids (sp?) and zoo-oids (Dr Who's K9) - I don't know if plant/mushroom/other category equivalents exist in SF and what they would be called) and 'sentient computers.' List of fictional computers is just that and Artificial intelligence in fiction describes specific 'constructed intelligences.' An overview of the topic would be within WP's remit (but a longer discussion probably falls outside it). Jackiespeel (talk) 22:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to AI in fiction—what a cool article! I agree with your assessment that an overview is appropriate. Perhaps we could find a way to focus on certain 'stronger' instances artificial intelligence (even though most of the AI's on this list probably meet criteria for "strong" as defined here). HAL 9000 and Wintermute strike me as relevant (especially to the "criticisms" section) and well-known. groupuscule (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Difficulty of evolving AI, and education within evolved AI[edit]

One of the biggest obstacles I anticipate with AI is not about the processing power required to facilitate an intelligent machine, but the processing power required to tune the AI.

Even with the processing power equivalent to the brain, there is a massive difference between brains solely as a result of how the brain grows and develops, resulting in a huge disparity between the intelligences of human beings.

AI will be no different. The processing power must be arranged effectively.

A genetic algorithm will be needed to tune the AI, but therein lies a problem. Perhaps an evolution focused solely on the brain may need much fewer iterations, but nonetheless it will be required. And to test the AI it would need to have lived (or have executed) long enough to measure its learning capacity. So we might have to wait hundreds or even thousands of years before an AI is tuned to (near) "perfection"!

And that's not to mention the complexity of having a system of education within which to train and test the AI's.

94.185.85.171 (talk) 06:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Rename proposal: AGI[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move. We'll have a simple disambiguation page for now, although I don't think there is any objection here to making Strong AI/Strong artificial intelligence into a broad concept article or something; please feel free. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


Strong AIArtificial general intelligence – Disambiguation Silence (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC) I suggest that we move this article to Artificial general intelligence, and make 'Strong AI' redirect here, with a dab note telling people that Searle's Strong AI thesis is discussed on the page Chinese room. Reasons:

  1. 'AGI' is mostly unambiguous (at least, it constitutes a unified enough topic to discuss in one article), whereas 'Strong AI' is highly ambiguous (Searle's thesis isn't primarily discussed here).
  2. Researchers in the field seem to be moving toward preferring 'AGI'.
  3. "artificial general intelligence" gets 804k Google hits. "strong artificial intelligence" gets only 269k hits ("strong AI" gets even fewer), in spite of soaking up a lot of irrelevant hits from Searle's usage.
  4. It's confusing to have a 'strong AI' article but no 'weak AI' article. The antonym of AGI is a bit less obvious, so fewer readers will be sent on a wild goose chase.

Any objections? -Silence (talk) 09:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. My opinion is that strong AI is more established than AGI and it's not for Wikipedia to predict where a field is heading. Looking at google scholar occurrences: "artificial general intelligence"(1730), "strong artificial intelligence" (3580) pgr94 (talk) 11:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
If you look at the hits you got for "strong AI", the vast majority of them aren't about the topic of this article. Looking at the first three pages of Scholar hits I get in Incognito Mode, they fall into these categories:
  1. About this article's subject: Copeland 1993, Looks & Goertzel 2006
  2. About Chinese room instead: Gilder 2002, Sharkey 2001, Searle 1990, Preston & Bishop 2002, Searle 1990, Rey 2002, Melnyk 1996, Amoroso 1995, Sloman 1986, Cam 1990, Penrose 1990, Searle 1982, Wakefield 2003, Bringsjord 1998, Searle 2001, Rey 1986, Puccetti 1980, Sloman 1985, Harman 1974, Sober 1992, Harnad 2001
  3. About modeling humans as smart machines, as contrasted with building intelligent machines ('weak AI'), instead: Hobbs 2006
  4. Refers to strong 'athletic identity' (= AI) instead: Horton & Maxk 2000
  5. Refers to people named 'Norman Strong' and 'Abdullah Iqbal' (= AI) instead: Iqbal et al. 2006
  6. About strong 'aluminum' (= Al) instead: Parfitt et al. 1991
  7. About strong 'A_1' modes in physics instead: Shifman et al. 1979, Zeiger et al. 1992
  8. About a different topic, mention rather than use 'strong AI' in this article's sense: Berger et al. 2000
So, at a cursory glance, only 2 out of every 30 articles using our article's title are actually about what we're talking about. (And one of those two articles, Looks & Goertzel 2006, mainly uses 'AGI' instead of 'strong AI'.) It looks like the case for moving is much, much stronger than I thought. Even if the number of contemporary articles about our article talking about 'strong AI' and talking about 'AGI' were the same, the sheer number of articles using 'strong AI' with other meanings makes the title unsuitable here. -Silence (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Assuming we're seeing the same list, it looks like "strong artificial intelligence" is a well-established term. pgr94 (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and it'is one that evidently should be the name of Chinese room, if of any article. Do you see the difference between the topic of Chinese room and the topic of this article? -Silence (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
My new recommendation is to turn 'Strong AI' into a disambiguation page, noting the following meanings:
  • Artificial general intelligence, a hypothetical machine that exhibits behavior at least as skillful and flexible as humans do.
    • The research program of building an artificial general intelligence.
  • Computational theory of mind, the view that human minds are (or can be usefully modeled as) computer programs.
    • The more general thesis, usually associated with physicalism and mechanism, that human minds are (or can be usefully modeled as) machines.
    • Searle's Strong AI thesis, the view that syntactic rules suffice for understanding (or semantics, or consciousness), criticized in the Chinese room thought experiment.
What do you think? -Silence (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Is there a reliable source, e.g. an AI textbook, that makes this distinction? I find this too subtle a difference to warrant significant changes. If you're convinced changes are needed, perhaps get some more opinions from editors over on artificial intelligence? pgr94 (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Which distinction are you asking for a source for? I made several distinctions above. -Silence (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
A couple of clarifications please:
  1. Is strong AI and Searle's strong AI thesis the same thing?
  2. Is the proposed change due to an evolution in the meaning of the terms?
  3. Is the proposed change due to a change in popularity of the labels AGI/strong AI?
  4. What do contemporary AI textbooks say?
Thanks for helping me understand.
The AGI community used to be disproportionately vocal, perhaps this perception is no longer accurate. I think there is reason for caution.
pgr94 (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
    1. 'Strong AI' is ambiguous. Sometimes it refers to AGI, sometimes to entirely different things. But it seems to most often be used for Searle's thesis, yes.
    2. Somewhat. I think 'AGI' has pretty much always had the same meaning, and 'Strong AI' has been somewhat ambiguous for a long time. But as 'AGI' has become the more mainstream term used by AI researchers, 'Strong AI' has increasingly become philosophers' jargon specific to debates in the vicinity of Searle's.
    3. I believe so.
    4. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach discusses 'Artificial General Intelligence' on page 27. It also follows the philosophical literature in using 'weak AI' to mean 'an artificial system exhibiting intelligent behavior' and 'strong AI' to mean 'an artificial system that can really and truly think / experience / mean things / etc.'. In other words, the article we're currently calling Strong AI is exactly what Russell & Norvig call 'Weak AI'. -Silence (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Support I like the idea of a disambiguation page (similar to the page we have for Weak AI), and I think that the term "AGI" has gained a lot of ground since we last tried to sort this out; even Kurzweil's people are using it now. I support the rename, and the disambiguation.
I have to criticize your concrete proposal above, however. I think that a two-way distinction between "AGI" and John Searle's "strong AI hypothesis" is sufficient: you don't need the three way division. First note that "Physicalism" or "mechanism" are different and more general than "computationalism" or "functionalism." Beyond that, any distinction between other forms of computationalism and "Searle's strong AI" is unnecessary; according to Searle, strong AI is computationalism or functionalism. (Searle writes in The Rediscovery of the Mind that his "Strong AI" is the same thing as Dennett's "computer functionalism", which is a form of computationalism).
Similar searches that I have done in the past have shown that the vast majority of academic sources (including Russell & Norvig's standard textbook) use "strong AI" to refer to Searle's strong AI, rather than Kurzweil's. Thus it seems like a mistake to name this article after Kurzweil's definition, especially when AGI is available and popular and unambiguous.
As to sources: Kurzweil makes a very clear definition in his books and websites, Searle makes a very clear definition in his papers and books. These are very well sourced in both this article and over at Chinese room. Their definitions are different and mutually incompatible (unless one assumes Searle is wrong -- see below). Kurzweil's "strong AI" is AGI. Searle's "strong AI" is the assumption that AGI will be conscious. (Searle agrees with Kurzweil that "AGI" is possible and may one day exist. He just disagrees it will necessarily be conscious.) With both of them using the same term for different things, it can be very confusing. A quick search of both names shows that Searle and Kurzweil have been at war for a long time:[1], so we are advised to be careful.
Kurzweil assumes intelligent function requires consciousness, and so, for Kurzweil saying "as intelligent as a human" (as in Kurzweil's definition "strong AI") implies "has consciousness" (as in Searle's definition of "strong AI"). Thus, if you agree with Kurzweil and disagree with Searle, then the "strong AI hypothesis" and "AGI" are close to the same thing (one is a philosophical position, the other is a capability, but close enough). This source [2] assumes Kurzweil is using the term this way.
I would venture to speculate that most of the people who use the term "strong AI" to mean "AGI" make the same assumptions as Kurzweil: they assume that intelligent behavior requires consciousness, and thus a machine with "artificial general intelligence" would need a simulation of consciousness, and they assume that a simulation of consciousness would actually experience consciousness as we do, and thus any machine with "AGI" would be conscious. These assumptions are Searle's strong AI. (And these are the assumptions that Searle does not make; he would call them an "ideology".) So calling "AGI" by the name "Strong AI" is, in my view, unfair to Searle: it can be taken as an assertion that Searle is wrong.
If this argument is correct, then it is a mistake to name an article about AGI "Strong AI". AGI is clearly defined in terms of intelligence, and leaves consciousness out of it, allowing Searle's "strong AI" to be proven or disproven by later work.
Forgive me for going on about this. I support the name change, and the creation of a disambiguation page. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 05:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Glad we agree! Pgr94's evidence seems pretty dead, so if no one comes up with a new argument against the move, I'll make it in 4 days. -Silence (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose creation of a disambiguation page, as these are not wholly unrelated concepts. bd2412 T 22:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Does it bother you that almost no academic sources define "strong AI" the way it is defined on this page? (As shown above by Silence and shown by me several years ago? See the footnote 54 under origin of the term.) I think you could argue pretty persuasively that this article uses the "wrong" definition of "strong AI" -- it uses a definition only prevalent in science fiction and Raymond Kurzweil. This is what Silence and I would like to correct. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 01:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • bd2412, do you also oppose renaming this article? My main proposal here is to remain 'Strong AI' to 'artificial general intelligence', which is a good idea even if we don't make a dab page. If we don't make it a dab page, then we'll need 'Strong AI' to redirect to 'Chinese room' rather than this page ('Artificial general intelligence'), since it appears that the great majority of people using the term 'Strong AI' are referring to Searle's definition (which is discussed in Chinese room, not here), not to artificial general intelligence. If you're suggesting that we merge Chinese room into this article, then I'm afraid I don't understand; the topics are distinct, and there's too much material on each to squeeze both into a single article. -Silence (talk) 07:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I have no opposition to changing the title, but a disambiguation page will offer no clarity on why different people have made different uses of the term within the same field. What is needed is an article (or a section redirect) succinctly explaining what the boundaries of "Strong AI" and "Weak AI" are according to different people. A disambiguation page can't accomplish that, as it can have no extended discussion, and no references or external links. bd2412 T 14:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per bd2412. This sounds like nitpicking, and I'm not sure "artificial general intelligence" really is unambigious anyway. If there's enough material to create spin-off articles, great, but a move isn't merited IMHO. SnowFire (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Artificial general intelligence is defined in terms of "intelligence". "Strong AI" is defined in terms of "having a mind" and "consciousness". This is not the same thing. If we spin off an article on artificial general intelligence then ALL the material in this article should go there, and this article will properly contain nothing except the section on Strong AI#Origin of the term: John Searle's strong AI. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
It still doesn't sound to me like the topics are ambiguous; it sounds like a topic with subtopics. Ambiguous is Mercury, which might mean a planet, a Roman god, or a car line. bd2412 T 16:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
They aren't subtopics. Norvig and Russell's AI textbook actually calls what we're calling 'Strong AI' in this article Weak AI. What they call Strong AI is the topic we discuss on Chinese room. Perhaps we should rename that article to "Strong AI", but we certainly shouldn't leave this article with the wrong name. The fact that we can also avoid ambiguities and equivocation in the process is an important bonus. -Silence (talk) 07:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Do you oppose the rename I proposed? It's confusing to conflate 'Oppose creation of disambiguation page' with 'Oppose rename proposal', and bd2412 only opposed the latter. 'Artificial general intelligence' doesn't need to be 100% unambiguous; it only needs to be unambiguous enough to warrant a single article. 'Strong AI' doesn't meet that criterion, as shown by the fact that Chinese room (which discusses Searle's concept of strong AI) is currently a separate article from this one. The two topics aren't totally unrelated, but they are distinct. -Silence (talk) 03:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
In setting up the DAB, rewording this article, and fixing links, there are a couple issues. First, it seems AGI sometimes refers to simply general, or human-like intelligence, and other times it is taken to mean human-level, as in >= human intelligence. Is this distinction important? Another issue is that some links to "strong AI" are meant in the context of "we have achieved strong ai", so linking "strong ai" to computational theory of mind leaves a bit to be desired: the subject of that article is the theory that human minds could be turing machine programs, not the technology itself—does this matter? Anyway, some help with this article and links that need fixing would be appreciated! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm going through these links and fixing them and almost ALL of them are pointing at this page. Since there are only two pages on the disambiguation page, I don't see the advantage of a disambiguation page over a redirect with a redirect template at the top of the page (i.e. "This article is about a theoretical technology, for the philosophical concept, see Computational theory of mind"). As someone who just came to these articles today, I'm finding the whole thing a bit disorienting.
Also, upon closer inspection, I don't really see where the consensus for the move really came from in the above discussions. I see two supporting, three opposing. The move seems premature. 0x0077BE (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Re-examining rename/move[edit]

I commented below the closed move discussion, but I figured this should have its own section, since the move discussion is closed and archived. My points (some the same as above) are that: 1.) I don't think that consensus was achieved in the original discussion, and a disambiguation page was not warranted. 2.) Nearly ALL links to Strong AI are referring to this article, and there are only two targets on the disambiguation page - this weighs heavily in favor of making this the main redirect. 3.) These concepts are closely related and not even entirely distinct as far as I can tell. This makes it much harder to tell what page you want to look at just based on the new article titles and the brief introductory sentences on the disambiguation page. As above, I suggest that for starters we change Strong AI to a redirect page to Artificial general intelligence and possibly add a soft-redirect template to the top of the page linking to either Computational theory of mind or Strong AI hypothesis. 0x0077BE (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Regarding the close to move: can you elaborate on why you think the close was inappropriate? Closing discussions is not simply counting heads, of course; the arguments to move were quite compelling. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
It's not that it was counting heads, it's just that I didn't see any consensus emerging, other than for a rename to either AGI or Strong artificial intelligence, rather than the DAB. I found bd2412's arguments compelling about why a disambiguation page is not adding any clarity, and didn't see any significant rebuttal on that notion. New users coming to the discussion (SnowFire, Red Slash and BDD) similarly did not seem persuaded by arguments about the DAB, but rather about renaming the article. So I guess I would say I think a close was likely appropriate for a move to AGI, but not for adding the disambiguation page. 0x0077BE (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, my closure does not preclude BD2412's proposal, on the contrary I tried to encourage it, although I am likely not going to be writing the article myself. Please feel more than free to make this change. BDD and redslash didn't seem to object to what I did, did they? Compelling arguments, not really refuted by anyone, were made that AGI is not the primary topic, if there is one, for the term Strong AI. I don't think I could have fairly closed the discussion by setting up a redirect from Strong AI to this article. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Regarding your claim about the links ALL (in caps!) coming here, having fixed a bunch of them I find this claim surprising. Do you have numbers, or is this just a general impression that you got somehow? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
It's quite possible that it's a selection bias or that I just happened to get more AGI hits than Searle-type hits. I think what's more likely is that since this wasn't a fork but a move that most direct links to Strong AI would be intended for AGI since, until now, that was the title of this article. 0x0077BE (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Regarding only two articles on the disambiguation page: per WP:TWODABS, I'm assuming your point is that since you believe "Strong AI" almost always refers to AGI and not conscious machines that Strong AI should redirect here? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
This could be a skewed perception from the fact that most of the links I've been disambiguating have been pointed at AGI, but yes, I would say that that is accurate. If the Searle-type is the more common form, a redirect from that to this article would also be fine. Still, I've seen it explicitly mentioned in articles about the Searle-type that his notion of "Strong AI" is not to be confused with the notion of AGI, but I have not seen the reverse. 0x0077BE (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok, well I think if a case can be made that there is a primary topic (i.e., WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) for strong AI then let's set up a redirect, but if not then a disambiguation page with only 2 entries is what we usually do in these cases. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree, I may have to defer to people who can take a more objective handle on things, though. I had assumed that AGI was the primary topic because of the balance of the links that I was seeing. I think maybe if we go based on Silence's list of references, Strong AI should redirect to Chinese Room with a hatnote to AGI and/or computational theory of mind. 0x0077BE (talk) 04:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I too think the move was a little rushed. Terminology does indeed change over time, but Wikipedia should be conservative and terminology should follow respected AI textbooks.
Looking at p.27 of Russell and Norvig (3rd ed) the same weight is given to "Human-level AI" as "Artificial General Intelligence". Should we therefore have a Human-level AI article too? At the end of the day, the burden of evidence should be on those proposing the change and should be based on textbooks. pgr94 (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Poole & Mackworth (2010) don't appear to mention "artificial general intelligence" at all. pgr94 (talk) 01:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Artificial Intelligence and the Infinity[edit]

I added this subject, in good faith, as it is an important issue concerning Artificial Intelligence with finite machines. It has been suppressed arguing that it needs references...

Well, as it can be easily seen below, the text is self-sufficient, as many other paragraphs that we can read in Wikipedia. For instance, check the whole paragraphs written about the power set, they have no references, and that is not needed, as it just simple mathematical reasoning. This is mathematics, not literature, or other opinion subjects.

Mathematical reasoning has a problem... it is either true or false by itself. It does not need a citation to become true. --AlvoMaia (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Infinity Paradox on Artificial Intelligence (... Suppressed ...)[edit]

Does not discuss improvements to the article. WP:FORUM -- -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 11:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A finite device can never generate the notion of infinity.

Therefore the notion of infinity is impossible to be acquired by a computer or by any other device that can only produce a finite set of results in a finite lapse of time.

This is a simple mathematical paradox, as the combinations from a finite set S are in the finite power set 2S. This applies either to computer states or neuron states. If the notion of infinity could be obtained from some finite combination this would mean that infinity would be equivalent to that finite sequence, which is obviously a contradiction.

Thus, infinity and other abstract notions have to be pre-acquired in any finite device.

--AlvoMaia (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

As you've been told by multiple editors, please provide sources. Your unwillingness to do so, and instead writing reams about why you don't need a source, is an indication sources may not exist for your interpretation. --NeilN talk to me 17:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


--NeilN It is as much an interpretation as any other statement written in any language. Either you understand it or not. I don't Neil. I already pointed out that references are absent from most mathematical work in Wikipedia, and that strict policy now seems to be followed only for some topics. For instance in this page, I can add "citation needed" to several sentences, starting from the first. But I would not suppress it. I'm sorry, but if you insist in suppressing material just with the "citations needed" argument, then to be conaistent with yourself, you would need to suppress most of Wikipedia paragraphs. Otherwise, I'm sorry to say that you seem to be just randomly supressing information, even if you don't realize it. --AlvoMaia (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

@AlvoMaia: See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because other unsourced text exists does not give you a free pass to add yet more unsourced text. If we did as you wanted, Wikipedia would be quickly overwhelmed by unsourced "interpretations". --NeilN talk to me 18:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

--NeilN I understand you Neil. It is the well known argument, "let the Chaos inside, if I can control it". Sorry, I don't have citations for that power argument! I just hope you understand that those kind of justifications were better presented by the Spanish Inquisition when willing to avoid publication of undesired material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlvoMaia (talkcontribs) 18:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

@AlvoMaia: A comparison to the Spanish Inquisition instead of providing a proper cite. Wow. BTW, adding "--" before my name causes the software to think that that's a signature and won't trigger a notification. --NeilN talk to me 21:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
@NeilN: You're right Spanish is probably a surplus. Thanks for the warning. As you probably understand, I don't kneel, to that. --AlvoMaia (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Just to clarify your concerns, the paragraph being self-contained is completely irrelevant. There are numerous issues on why we need references: is inclusion encyclopedic? Even if the argument is self-contained, the suggestion that the issue is central to the subject of the article needs citation. Otherwise we come across the questing of according to whom? According to the Wikipedia article on Artificial general intelligence?
Wikipedia doesn't commit to original research, even if that research might be of high quality. I will only mention it once, but the only reason noone has reported you for breaking rules WP:3RR is because they most likely believe you could contribute properly if you only took time to get aquainted with what Wikipedia is, and what it is not. I suggest you refain from edit warring so that hopefully no ban needs to be dealed out.-- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 21:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
@CFCF: I insist, a single paragraph is not a question of "original research" it is a question of common sense. No citation to this is needed, if you understand it... just copy it. Otherwise, if do not understand it, you should not cite it. Anyhow you can cite a webpage, even if it is a webpage history file. Thanks for your constructive answer. --AlvoMaia (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Please, these policies are not here arbitrarily, but exist to ensure that illegitimate content is not added to Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not cite itself, this goes against the policy WP:Circular. If you wish to take up these policies or suggest we are incorrectly implementing them you can start a Request for comment. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 22:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
@CFCF: Yes, I understand that and I agree in general. However, above the rule there is the human judgment, to check if the rule applies or not. Otherwise you will have human machine behavior. Rules are not blind, but it seems that here they are. Notice the time lost discussing the procedure and not the issue... just because of one blind rule.--AlvoMaia (talk) 23:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
@AlvoMaia: The only one wasting our time is you with your refusal to provide a reference. The material you added isn't going to stay in the article unless you provide a proper reference. Unless you have something else to say other than, "I don't have to provide a reference", I'm done here. --NeilN talk to me 23:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
@NeilN: I understand that without an ID citation card (issued by "reliable sources"...) you can shoot. Go ahead, do what you want, you are the man with the gun. Did you saw me undoing the suppression? No! So what is you problem? You can not kill ideas, even if you kill the one that expresses them. Best wishes. --AlvoMaia (talk) 00:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Whether you think Wikipedia is run following human judgement or not is completely irrelevant, and to be frank I do not care. Sure, you can make an analogy to shooting someone, but noone is saying you're wrong, you should be shot/banned for trying to improve the wiki etc. What we are saying is you need to follow the rules, just like everyone else. There are no exceptions!
I'm closing this discussion, seeing as talk pages are for discussing the article, and ways to improve it, not discussing policy etc. etc. which is handled on policy pages. This is not a general forum. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 11:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.