Talk:Artificial intelligence

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kannanfire (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Kannanfire. This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Moon.pa96.

A little light relief

We're all doomed! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-30290540

Missing AI topic - Artificial intelligence used in Software bug detection/quality assurance

I have perused the Wikipedia articles on both "AI" and "Expert systems" and found no reference to the early use of AI in detecting (or predicting) problems or locating potential bugs in application or systems programs. As someone who was instrumental in developing such systems from the 70's through to 1994 for IBM mainframes (IBM/360,370,390,ES9000, etc) and Operating Systems, I find this extraordinary.

Where better to utilise AI techniques in the first instance than in the creation of reliable, quality checked computer programs you might well ask? At the time of developing these systems there was precious little in the way of introspective computing. My software may have actually been the first of its genre and foreshadowed the likes of "Visual Studio" and similar products which of course were produced for a different generation of hardware. My software automatically also prevented buffer overflow, tight loops, macro loops and excessive resource utilisation to name but a few things.

Of course, this lack of knowledge is heightened by the fact that the details of the products that I created (OLIVER & SIMON) have been deleted from Wikipedia over the years through Wikipedia's strict rules (Original research/citations). This is despite the fact that these products were in commercial use with around 600+ large IBM data centres in Europe and elsewhere over an extended period during the 70's, 80's and 90's. Derivatives of these products are still in use in 2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C1:4DB2:2400:DC7E:E912:1EA8:AA82 (talk) 10:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

As already stated in the article, "AI is relevant to any intellectual task. Modern artificial intelligence techniques are pervasive and are too numerous to list here." Regarding work from the 20+ years ago, it might also fall into "Frequently, when a technique reaches mainstream use, it is no longer considered artificial intelligence". If you have a strong source of it as a prominent use of artificial intelligence, Applications of artificial intelligence#Computer science or (if the application is narrow) Test automation would probably be a good place to start. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The field is truly gigantic and ancient. Entire sub-fields and historical ages involving thousands of people and hundreds of institutions have disappeared beneath the surface.

In the 70s and 80s AI-based automatic programming was a very promising direction, and it seemed like we were on our way to bug-free, perfectly efficient computer programs by the turn of the century. However, this all became very unfashionable in the 90s: the lower quality standards of internet programming, agile software development, the giant step backward. So automatic programming is on the back burner for now. Sadly, the total amount of work being done in this vein is genuinely minuscule today (relative to the amount of resources going into deep learning, for example.) So it doesn't have much of a footprint here in Wikipedia today.

I'm sure automatic programming will come back into fashion one day. It seems ridiculous to me that we are willing to put up with all these bugs, crashes, and slow running software, when AI was so close to solving this back in the 80s. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

AI Languages/Platforms ?

Anyone else think History of software engineering#Artificial intelligence might be useful/helpful enough to be RETURNED TO returned/DUPLICATED(but WP:CWW?) in this article?? --Curious1i (talk) 04:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

If there's no WP:CONSENSUS on its removal from here we should restore it; the edit where I removed the material is here. It would indeed be useful if we can get a third opinion on it from other page editors. Keep in mind that the article WP:LENGTH of the readable prose in this article is currently around 90kb, which is a little large by wikipedia standards. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 07:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I personally don't think that the section you linked to is particularly good. The section in this article has been vetted and re-vetted for relevance, whereas the section you linked only mentions a few randomly selected facts. Just my opinion. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I guess the (simplistic) way I think about it is: AI Languages(/Platforms) WAS a part of this AI article for years (I'm thinking about importance of mainly Lisp & Prolog...), AND, it seems important enough to appear in Template:Artificial intelligence... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curious1i (talk • contribs) 02:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

What if we have a paragraph on AI programming trends that links to the new History of software engineering#Artificial intelligence section, which restores mention of lisp and prolog, and could include other information such as a brief sentence about the current talent crunch[1] and that there has been a rapid growth in AI since 2012.[2][3] Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Possible Missing Citation

In the overview, it appears a citation should be given for the statement "Many tools are used in AI, including versions of search and mathematical optimization, artificial neural networks, and methods based on statistics, probability and economics. The AI field draws upon computer science, mathematics, psychology, linguistics, philosophy and many others."

No citation is provided for either assertion. Stratovarius03 (talk) 01:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The first sentence is a summary of the "tools" section in the article, and citations can be found there. The second sentence is fairly obvious to anyone familiar the field and its history. But you could probably find a citation in the introductory "what is AI" chapter of any AI textbook. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 05:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit for Clarification

By the "statistical learning" subsection, the abbreviation "GOFAI" has not be defined in several sections. As many readers jump directly to certain sections, it might help ease of readership to redefine this term every once in a while. Stratovarius03 (talk) 01:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

There's never a perfect solution for what to do about technical jargon given that most users jump around sections, but I added "traditional" to soften one of the re-introductions. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

"Decision Stream" Editing Campaign

This article has been targeted by an (apparent) campaign to insert "Decision Stream" into various Wikipedia pages about Machine Learning. "Decision Stream" refers to a recently published paper that currently has zero academic citations. The number of articles that have been specifically edited to include "Decision Stream" within the last couple of months suggests conflict-of-interest editing by someone who wants to advertise this paper. They are monitoring these pages and quickly reverting any edits to remove this content.

Known articles targeted:

• Artificial intelligence
• Statistical classification
• Deep learning
• Random forest
• Decision tree learning
• Decision tree
• Pruning (decision trees)
• Predictive analytics

BustYourMyth (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! May I suggest a bit more of an edit summary on your fixes to that. North8000 (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Dear BustYourMyth,

  Your activity is quite suspiciase: registration of the user just to delete the mention of the one popular article. Peaple from different contries with the positive hystory of Wikipedia improvement are taking part in removing of your commits as well as in providing information about "Decision Stream".

Kind regards, Dave