so we are done here.do not hesitate to contact me whenever possible

Quote:Original post by headfonez
Whose dictionary is that according to again? Webster? Wikipedia? And that definition is based on the majority of humans? Which are always 'right'?

I guess the problem is that it is obvious that your conversation offers nothing constructive whatsoever. You are in an AI forum, and have yet to discuss AI at all. If you can't ultimately express the ideas in your post in a turing complete language programming language, then it is in the wrong forum.

And I think what annoys people is that it is obvious you know it, and are asking ridiculously stupid questions just to waste storage space. You actually asked me earlier whether a *machine* was a machine or a human. That is stupid.

People here love chiming in and helping people, and it really annoys them to discover that they are actually dealing with prepubescent teens who have no interest in actually getting answers, but, rather, are very interested in wasting the time of other people. I, for example, tried many times to give a very precise and simple definition of AI to aleve your confusion. You responded by feigning ignorance of the distinction between a human being (which notably has a distinct biological definition) and a non-human machine constructed by humans.

@smitty1276 I have to disagree with you
In my point of view this thread is very good(especially for those who argued here)
It tries to clear some concepts, some definitions all beneficient for this field for 2 reasons
A.they concern mainly AI concept vs NI and NI vs reactive systems
B.they led to some pertinent observations made about our way of perceiving world(as subject commenters and viewpoint defenders)

He did have some weird replies, but most of them were quite pertinent(at least he attacked everything shaky in our theories). Which might prove itself good both for the winners(they get to share their opinions which is what this forum is about) and for so-called-losers (they may have or not a different view now).

Anyway , even if sometimes it could have proven itself Lounge subject, I must say that, due to A, B the thread should stay here.
Please, if you want to start a polemic, start a thread called About the thread called "What .." and do not overload this thread.I want to keep the opinions presented here for reference and a polemic about was it good or bad would not belong


Please bare with me, you seem to have a lot of sense(and do not take it personally, though I might seem a bit harsh in this reply)

My definition of an artificial intelligence is thus:

Any non-organic and human-built entity (otherwise known as a machine) that appears to emulate the mind of an intelligent lifeform (such as humans or dolphins).

Just because somebody made you doesn't mean you are artificial. You have to be inorganic to be artificial. That's my take on it, anyways.

Quote:Original post by smitty1276

Quote:Original post by headfonez
Whose dictionary is that according to again? Webster? Wikipedia? And that definition is based on the majority of humans? Which are always 'right'?

I guess the problem is that it is obvious that your conversation offers nothing constructive whatsoever. You are in an AI forum, and have yet to discuss AI at all. If you can't ultimately express the ideas in your post in a turing complete language programming language, then it is in the wrong forum.

And I think what annoys people is that it is obvious you know it, and are asking ridiculously stupid questions just to waste storage space. You actually asked me earlier whether a *machine* was a machine or a human. That is stupid.

People here love chiming in and helping people, and it really annoys them to discover that they are actually dealing with prepubescent teens who have no interest in actually getting answers, but, rather, are very interested in wasting the time of other people. I, for example, tried many times to give a very precise and simple definition of AI to aleve your confusion. You responded by feigning ignorance of the distinction between a human being (which notably has a distinct biological definition) and a non-human machine constructed by humans.

I disagree

Quote:Original post by Oberon_Command
My definition of an artificial intelligence is thus:

Any non-organic and human-built entity (otherwise known as a machine) that appears to emulate the mind of an intelligent lifeform (such as humans or dolphins).

Just because somebody made you doesn't mean you are artificial. You have to be inorganic to be artificial. That's my take on it, anyways.

what is the difference between an inorganic substance and an organic substance. For example if i make a working cell that has no mitochondria, is it inorganic or is it still organic?

Quote:Original post by Roboguy

Quote:Original post by headfonez

Quote:Original post by smitty1276

Quote:Original post by headfonez
Whose dictionary is that according to again? Webster? Wikipedia? And that definition is based on the majority of humans? Which are always 'right'?

I guess the problem is that it is obvious that your conversation offers nothing constructive whatsoever. You are in an AI forum, and have yet to discuss AI at all. If you can't ultimately express the ideas in your post in a turing complete language programming language, then it is in the wrong forum.

And I think what annoys people is that it is obvious you know it, and are asking ridiculously stupid questions just to waste storage space. You actually asked me earlier whether a *machine* was a machine or a human. That is stupid.

People here love chiming in and helping people, and it really annoys them to discover that they are actually dealing with prepubescent teens who have no interest in actually getting answers, but, rather, are very interested in wasting the time of other people. I, for example, tried many times to give a very precise and simple definition of AI to aleve your confusion. You responded by feigning ignorance of the distinction between a human being (which notably has a distinct biological definition) and a non-human machine constructed by humans.

I disagree

You don't even say what part you disagree with, let alone a explaination of why you disagree. Care to enlighten us, or is this discussion finished?

I just said that to annoy the poster because he is annoying me

vallentin,

That's fine, it's up to the moderators anyway. But it seems to me that if it is known what AI means (and this is a "computer science" issue, for which it has a distinct meaning), that the question is answered. Any "intelligence" that does not meet the precise definition of AI as the term is meant withing the CS context, must therefore be "normal" intelligence (given the phrasing of the question and the assumption that such a thing exists).

Everybody is just talking in circles anyway. He asks a question, somebody answers it, then he deconstructs the answer by ignoring a few simple and obvious facts, thereby coercing someone new to correct him, and the cycle repeats.

I guess if you're enjoying it though, have fun! I won't argue anymore.

(Rating++ for being reasonable, btw)