XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science   
   From: droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com   
      
   In article ,   
    Greg Goss  wrote:   
      
   > "Michael F. Stemper"  wrote:   
   >   
   > >On 01/23/2014 06:17 PM, Your Name wrote:   
   >   
   > >> There was an article in the newspaper not long ago about the experts   
   > >> working with robots etc. saying that getting to a point of having   
   > >> actual computer intelligence is stil decades away.   
   > >   
   > >It always has been. Kind of like fusion.   
   >   
   > Well, a lot of the skills that were defined as part of "AI" get   
   > redefined out once they're met.   
   >   
   > Expert Systems?   
   > Basic language translation?   
   > Grandmaster-level chess?   
   > Driving a car on public roads?   
   >   
   > Nope.  Those aren't AI after all.   
      
   They'd be AI if they were solved with AI.  Instead, they are solved by   
   clever humans using computers as tools.  Things like Watson and   
   self-driving cars are, as currently implemented, cheats.   
      
   As I have posted in the AI newsgroups, you can easily set up a standard   
   for an AI driver.  Run this experiment: allow a person to drive a car   
   remotely using only a video camera, measuring their performance as you   
   reduce the resolution of said camera.  Then you pick a "minimum   
   acceptable" point for their ability to navigate the environment.  That's   
   your Turing Test for AI drivers, getting around with only a crappy web   
   cam as your input.   
      
   Compare that to how Google and others are solving the problem and it is   
   easy to state unequivocally that AI is *not* being used.   
      
   --   
   iPhone apps that matter:    http://appstore.subsume.com/   
   My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, theremailer.net,   
       and probably your server, too.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)