Talk:Artificial intelligence

using a non-circular (and more corrent) short description

The current short description is:

Intelligence demonstrated by machines

This is:

1. circular
2. machines is too narrow, more to do with machine learning.

Regarding #2, I can "do" AI, e.g. a FF neural network on paper, that is a much AI en silica.

I propose to use (in line with the main body text):

The ability of systems to perceive, synthesize, and infer information

Bquast (talk) Bquast (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

1. Don't think it's circular -- it just assumes the reader already knows what intelligence is. E.g., defining "puppy dog" as "a young dog".
2. How about replacing "machines" with "machines or software"?

"perceive, synthesize, infer" ... hmm ... you left out "learn" ... and "knowledge" ... but, frankly, intelligence is so notoriously difficult to define that we're just opening a can of worms trying to define it here -- you'll have the whole history of philosophy and psychology picking away at you. Better to just leave it out.

My two cents. ---- CharlesTGillingham (talk) 06:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the definition is circular. Intelligence is a general word not related to artificial intelligence. For "machines", I don't think it's narrow. Currently all AI is done on computers. I don't think you can do a neural network on paper. Cooper2222 (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@Bquast do you have a source for the definition? I'm fine with leaving it in if we can source it, otherwise I put in "to learn and to reason, to generalize, and to infer meaning" because that's close to how the Encyclopedia Britannica characterizes it, and IMHO is better at communicating what sort of things AI researchers (as opposed to other computer science researchers) work on. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SP23 - Sect 201 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2023 and 5 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Liliability (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Liliability (talk) 03:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

"Tools" section should contain a "machine learning" subsection

I believe machine learning is part of AI and the "Tools" section should contain a subsection named "machine learning methods".

However, currently under the "Tools" section, there is only a subsection named "Classifiers and statistical learning methods". "Classification" is just one task of supervised learning, which is one type of machine learning. Also, not all machine learning methods are statistical.

Changing "classifiers and statistical learning methods" to "machine learning methods" can also make the title simpler and easier to understand.

@CharlesGillingham @CharlesTGillingham

Cooper2222 (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

There are many ways to organize this section. The idea was to list the tools without worrying about what they are used for, because in many cases, a particular tool can be used for many different things. This is kind of obvious with Search, Logic and ANNs.

All the things listed there (decision tree, nearest neighbor, Kernel methods, SVM, naive Bayes) are "classifiers" that were developed in the language of the statistics literature (in the 90s) and were mostly applied to machine learning. However, they are also tools for data science and statistical analysis. (Or, at very least, they share a lot in common with other statistical tools.)

Thus, I like the word "statistics" or "statistical" in the title. These are statistical tools. I would be more inclined to strike the "machine learning" part of the title -- we already have a section on machine learning above.

But feel free to be be bold and re-title or reorganize. ---- CharlesTGillingham (talk) 01:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Originally I didn't consider models like k-NN to be statistical, because they are not based on probability. But you said these models all came from statistics. If we consider all these models to be statistical, what is the difference between statistical learning and machine learning? ---- Cooper2222 (talk) 03:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, for me, all these tools are all somewhere near the border between AI and statistics, regardless of whether they are generally considered to be inside or outside of AI. It's the shared mathematical language, the way the problems are framed, and the precise way solutions can be judged and measured. All of that comes from statistics, not from previous AI research. ---- CharlesTGillingham (talk) 02:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Future

In the "Future - Technological unemployment" section, would it be appropriate to add a clarifying statement to the quote, "...but they generally agree that it could be a net benefit if productivity gains are redistributed." With how it's presented, there is explicit reasoning that productivity gains would be seen by displaced workers receiving the monetary excess generated by AI's labor. However, this source is a survey of economics professors. Not business leaders speaking on affected industries and not sociologists speaking on affected workers. As a professional writer, presenting a quote like that from experts in a different field feels like an intentional misrepresentation.

Newer and older articles take a different tack, speculating that productivity gains would be seen in industries receiving displaced workers. Elsewhere, it's predicted that productivity gains would be seen from knowledge workers that learn or are able to augment their work with AI as it presents the opportunity to handle repetitive tasks.

Anecdotally, I use AI as an editor and it has tripled my productivity as a writer, which has given me time to edit Wikipedia articles. Software developers with whom I work have announced similar results, without mention of Wikipedia. In that regard, the section on technological unemployment speaks more to the AI boogeyman than it does potential benefit, and I think we should fix that.

NOTE: I am not an AI nor am I employed by an AI or an AI developer. I have no stake in AI and no more interest than ensuring an accurate reporting of the facts. Oleanderyogurt (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the current sentence is for many reasons problematic. IMO it would be best to simply remove it. North8000 (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Infobox

This article needs an infobox, it could be there general infobox template, or a specific one. Technology standard is a common one, but standard is not correct. Maybe scientific domain or something. What does everyone think? Bquast (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

IMHO we're better off without it. I foresee endless problems trying to decide what to put into it for such a broad vaguely defined topic and not much value to what we do put in there. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)