Talk:AI effect

Sources and ideas

I intended to write this article some time ago, but someone beat me to the punch. I have a large number of sources and ideas at User:CharlesGillingham/AI effect. I don't have time to finish this now. Is anyone else interested? ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I dumped some of my research into the article. I didn't attempt to write it, really, just supplied a number of quotes. As I said, I have more at User:CharlesGillingham/AI effect. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

With these changes, I don't believe the article needs to be tagged with anything other than the "expansion" tags in the sections. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

again and again the same and the same

Someone (not me!) needs to clean this up. I counted at least 4 times that the premise of the article was stated. I mean, come on, have you not got something else to say? If not perhaps this article should be merged with AI.

--thomas

Article and getting better quality into the problem

Hi all

Firstly can I just say that I am hoping we can get a much better quality article written here...

First of all there is the problem of the definition of AI effect.

Artificial_intelligence#Applications says (showing the term usage in AI article)

Frequently, when a technique reaches mainstream use, it is no longer considered artificial intelligence, sometimes described as the AI effect.

The Artificial Intelligence portal Did You Know section says (showing the main Wikiproject definition)

that the tendency to deprecate the usefulness of some human abilities after advances in artificial intelligence and robotics allows embodied agents to master these abilities is called the AI effect?

The AAAI organisation says (a major professional body)

"The great practical benefits of AI applications and even the existence of AI in many software products go largely unnoticed by many despite the already widespread use of AI techniques in software

(Interesting to see the members of the panel for 2008-2009)

Nested Universe says (showing general usage of the term)

The A.I. Effect describes a human cognitive bias to discount improvements made in the science of Artificial Intelligence.

Transwiki says

There exist at least two definitions of what "AI effect" means.

First, it is the tendency to deprecate the usefulness of some human abilities after advances in artificial intelligence and robotics allows embodied agents to master these abilities.

Second, it is the tendency that the great practical benefits of AI applications and even the existence of AI in many software products go largely unnoticed by many despite the already widespread use of AI techniques in software, as people after a while take their existence as granted, and do not consider them to be intelligent.

It seems that we need to consider the main definition we are using in the article here...at the moment we have:-

"The AI effect occurs when people discount the intelligent behavior of an artificial intelligence program by arguing that it's not real intelligence."

I do not believe this is correct, it seems to not agree with anything the others are saying, and in fact seems to be half made up - the bit about "arguing it's not real"

I would suggest that we amend to:-

"The AI effect occurs when applications of artificial intelligence are used in systems and discounted as intelligent by the users of those systems."

Examples of this phenomenon are "bot" characters in videogames, Chess computers and AI algorithms used for the cruise control of cars and for planning by the military and by civil governments.

Chaosdruid (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice work collecting those definitions. The best definition above is the one which classifies it as a cognitive bias. This is stunningly accurate and I would definitely include that.

I agree that the current definition isn't quite right. At the very least, it doesn't read very well. But it does capture the essential important point, made by McCorduck and Brooks in the second paragraph: critics of AI have been redefining intelligence over the last fifty years, effectively moving the goalposts. Once upon a time, people thought that doing logic required intelligence. Now we know it doesn't, because 1956's Logic Theorist wasn't intelligent. Or was it? That's the AI effect. Until people see AI programs like the ones in the movies, anything machines can do isn't intelligent, by definition.

In your version I don't think "users of those systems" is quite right. "Critics" would be closer. Also, "used in systems" isn't necessary either. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't hesistate to WP:Be bold and make any changes you like. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 00:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Using logic to define AI effect It seems to me that the AI effect is the combination of one or more logical fallacies that are more global than this specific problem. Dismissing AI advances seems to entail the "No true Scotsman" or "Moving the goalposts" fallacies as well as simple anthropocentrism. Mathiusdragoon (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned I think you have realised what I was saying in the post above.There is too much going on for what definitions there were and it may be time for a new combination to accurately sum up what it is. Chaosdruid (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The article references "Tesler's Theorem" and links to my CV where I offer this reformulation: Intelligence is whatever machines haven't done yet. That's what I believe I originally said (I think in the late sixties). Note that I was defining "intelligence", not "artificial intelligence". I closed by saying, Many people define humanity partly by our allegedly unique intelligence. Whatever a machine—or an animal—can do must (those people say) be something other than intelligence. I included animals because I have seen people refuse to acknowledge that gorillas, squirrels, whales and many other animals possess intelligence that overlaps with ours. Larry Tesler (talk) 04:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)