February 17, 2006
Does the term Artificial Intelligence really fit?
Tony asked:
Doesn't Artificial mean it isn't real? Which means that Artificial Intelligence is really an oxymoron right? How can Intelligence be fake, if a machine really does think? Shouldn't Synthetic Intelligence be the right term? But machines with "AI" can think for themselves and solve problems its never faced before unlike other machines that don't and use preexisting data.
Pick Your Babys Gender
Doesn't Artificial mean it isn't real? Which means that Artificial Intelligence is really an oxymoron right? How can Intelligence be fake, if a machine really does think? Shouldn't Synthetic Intelligence be the right term? But machines with "AI" can think for themselves and solve problems its never faced before unlike other machines that don't and use preexisting data.
Pick Your Babys Gender
Written by: John
Filed Under: Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Tags: Artificial Intelligence, Fit, Synthetic Intelligence
Trackback URL: http://roboticstechnologycenter.com/263/does-the-term-artificial-intelligence-really-fit/trackback/
joyell222
February 18, 2006 at 3:02 am
You got a good point, but “Artificial Intelligence” really does fit. It’s used because the machine is given someone Else’s intelligence and doesn’t think on it’s own, so whatever thought process it has is “Artificial”.
phil8656
February 18, 2006 at 9:56 am
How about artificial ignorance? My computer has that.
hkyson
February 18, 2006 at 10:56 am
Yeah, artificial intelligence exists. IBM has already constructed a computer that beat Gary Kasparov in a chess match. Most people will agree that it takes intelligence to play chess.
IBM’s computer, however, can do nothing more than play chess. Moreover, it does not play chess the way Kasparov does.
As time goes on, computers will become more skilled at imitating more and more things that intelligent people do.
Ray Kurzweil, in “The Age of Spritual Machines” predicted that by the middle of this century the equivalent of $2,000 dollars will by a computer with the thinking power of several human brains.
We won’t know for sure, of course, whether this is really possible until such a computer is built. I myself think it is likely that Kurzweil is right.
Harleigh Kyson Jr.
BGrimey
February 20, 2006 at 2:35 pm
“The question is not whether machines can think, but if men do.”
(B.F. Skinner)
jkk kkk
February 21, 2006 at 1:22 am
there are a few definitions of the term ‘artificial’.
one of them is:
1.made by human skill; produced by humans (opposed to natural): artificial flowers.
thus, the term ‘artificial’ intelligence would be a suitable term in your question.
the others are:
2.imitation; simulated; sham: artificial vanilla flavoring.
3.lacking naturalness or spontaneity; forced; contrived; feigned: an artificial smile.
no’s 2 and 3 fit ‘philosophy pretty much perfectly.
‘intelligence’ in philosophy is pure ridicule of what is consider ‘intelligence’. in short, it is an ‘imitation’ of true intelligence.
so, how does ‘philosophy’ qualify as artificial? well, endless repetitive questions within a question that involve double negatives along with esoteric terminology is a sad and shameful way to try and convey ‘intelligence’. questions asked by philosophy when asked in a straightforward manner sounds like they were asked by a retarded chimp, which in actuality is insulting to chimps to be compared to ‘philosophers’ and i apologize for that but hopefully that helps illustrate the level of ‘thought’ that is required to be a philosopher.
philosophy is also forced and contrived, which follows no 2 definition.
philosophy constantly attempts to force itself as a legitimate academic major. it must be political correctness or just helping out retards who dont have the eye hand coordination for ceramics class.
ever hear a ‘philosopher’ discuss issues? i know two people who do this. one has a bachelors in philosophy and the other a phd. you know what they sound like? yes, you guessed it: like aggressive retarded chimps who would fling their feces at you if they werent dressed by the workers in the institution they live in.
their ‘superior’ intellect have left them crippled in life, unable to hold any form of true job down, loners who border on being sociopaths and basically just sad pathetic examples of what human beings should be like.
Jimmy
January 27, 2012 at 3:31 pm
Is there a point to that sad irrelevant rant above me? Do you have anything else to do?