Is it AI or not

Being a person with a polly sci major and Army ROTC background in college (along with union electrical construction school), my understanding of AI however, came from talk radio (both politically leftist and rightist).

I heard rightist Hugh Hewitt say something about teaching law school during the day and how someone put a reading, writing version of AI in front of a California state bar exam lawyer certification test and it did much better than several of its human counterparts. I guess that's around the time when AI became all the talk.

Have to get people to poop in a litterbox first ;)

The Turing has been passed quite a while ago. Plus the test is flawed.

AI has never been properly defined and so people are using to describe all sorts of things.

It's a sad reflection of priorities where the primary concern is about being sued rather than making sure patients get the best treatment.

Some lawyers getting caught being dumb is not the same as using a clinically approved tool. A clinician isn't ever going to diagnose a patient via ChatGPT. If they did they deserve to get the book thrown at them.

Er, hospitals.

No it isn't.

Which is likely illegal. Hence all the suits against google et all.

The risk to jobs from AI is massively overblown. People aren't going to lose jobs to AI, they will lose jobs from other people who use AI.

Radiologists' jobs have the potential of improvement with AI.

Exactly. Perfection is not the target. At a minimum an AI that performs as well as a human that never gets tired, grumpy or distracted and is twice as fast would be enough of an improvement.

This is the interesting stuff.

It's possible the robot ideas will fall prey to the same issues. If you define a complex enough task, maybe the machine will fail to plan what it has to do properly. And trying the tiny tests with a bag of crisps, isn't really all that much of a challenge, from a complexity perspective.

"Take this 40 foot container of ASML Lithography machine parts, assemble and calibrate the machine."

The motion on the Google robot, isn't all that smooth. Boston Dynamics has some software they use for "choreography", that smooths out some of that. Maybe telling the Google robot "how to be smooth", would automatically result in it choreographing what it is doing. Instead of "bump-bump-bumping" the drawer shut. But the bumping behavior likely results from the computer re-evaluating the problem every 0.2 seconds and working out a new set of actions (which includes another tiny "bump"). So perhaps that's an artifact of the method.

Paul

Sure it can. Write tests as is normal practice.

In the UK and Europe, the plaintiff must repay expenses of those involved if their side loses.

I used "AI" since 1978. But every few years, what used to be AI becomes commonplace and stops being alled AI. Character and voice recognition, file completion, symbolic manipulation (Macsyma, Wolfram), ELIZA psychanalyser, were once called AI. Then again, I'm a 62yo (familially) third generation computer user as well as a third generation engineer. If you used Marvin Minsky's fifty year old psychanalysis program ELIZA (available in emacs as doctor; I use it for night time OCD panic attacks), ChatGPT looks awfully boring. I've used fractals (EXCEL:LOGEST) for fraud detection for four decades.

Gregory Nazianzen, the Great, tells us all creativity is divine (28:6; 1 cor 3:5-9) and denounced anti-science at Basil's funeral (42:11) as ignorant, lazy and stupid. (My namesake, Basil of Caereria, was a physician, who invented the concept of a hospital.) This may be found on p151 of the 1977 OEDB Patrsitics textbook used in high schools in Greece (Evagelos Theodorou, Anthology of Holy Fathers.) More completely from Florovsky v7 p109 "We derive something useful for our orthodoxy even from the worldly science.. Everyone who has a mind will recognize that learning is our highest good.. also worldly learning, which many Christians incorrectly abhor.. those who hold such an opinion are stupid and ignorant. They want everyone to be just like themselves, so that the general failing will hide their own"

Google Books Ngram Viewer traces "AI" way back to beyond 1800, although it seems to have increased rapidly from the mid 1950s.

Ed

Maybe so. Very interesting comments from all of you.

When you've got a moment (after you've fixed your clock), could you zip over and look at this question.

There's a guy who owns more Internet Radios than he knows what to do with, who is getting "disconnected" randomly.

And the other thing I don't know, is if IR has made any recent changes to the transport protocol, which might break a radio.

Paul

I developed ANN classifiers in the mid-late 80s for explosive recognition in suitcases and as hardware plant observers for control loops. The size of the training set is one of the issues...but..... the web has a gazillion images that training sets are harvested. I know of a few local self-driving car companies that do exactly that.

Yes, verification of the ANN is and still is a big issue. J

I did a fair amount of 'AI' research in the 80s and early 90s. The amount of hype was amazing and it was all about 'branding' IMHO...a new science fiction technology made real. I bundled up for the first AI winter....I've moved to a different climate where I don't have to bundle up for the second AI winter.....

The really hard aspects of AI are knowledge discovery and composition which has made some progress but nowhere near sensational. Ask a computer program to design and build an automatic transmission, and then figure out why it doesn't work as well when a different ATF is used.....We are *really* far away from that.

Yeah, you DO want to classify that source. Alas, the internet is set up so... it could be that 'Paul' is an AI.

If I thought some AI was going to harvest my personal data and do nasty things with it you bet I'd be running away hoping to win an Olympic gold medal with my speed...