Kmguru: I find it difficult to agree with any of your views on this issue.
What is the point of the following?
Are you saying that George Bush is not a human because he can not seem to make intelligent decisions? Is "Data" of fictional Startrek, an AI? Is God an AI? Since God can not seem to do anything right.
The above does not seem relevant to this thread or our posts to it. I said nothing about Bush or any entity unable to make intelligent decisions. Data is a fictional character. Discussion of god belongs in a forum dedicated to either religion or philosophy.
As of our current state of knowledge, I consider a human to be the only entity with general purpose intelligence. If data existed, I would consider him to be an AI, and would consider a much less capable robot to be an AI device.
I made some remarks about Deep Blue and process control computers/mechanisms, which I do not consider to be AI devices. I implied that the activities of Deep Blue are far more complex than your device. I also implied that the process control systems were comparable to your device. You replied with an appeal to authority, citing what was probably a publicity statement rather than an informed scientific opinion.
NASA called the program in Deep Space One as AI. That is good enough for me. I used an improved version of the algorithm in my programs. As long as it is replacing humans in the analysis and decision processes for the complex issues - I will call it AI, whether you accept or not.
The above makes no attempt to compare the complexity of your device with Deep Blue or process control systems, neither of which are considered AI devices. Do you consider such devices to be AI? Do you consider your device to be more complex or closer to being an AI device?
You seem to me to be alone in your view. I know of nobody who considers highly specialized devices to be anything more than expert systems, rather than AI devices. Do you really consider your system to be more complex than Deep Blue, which (as I stated previously) is not even close to being AI.
I think that my view of what constitutes AI is closer to reality than yours.
I suppose, it is how you define AI...According to your own statement, and I can prove it,...I am sorry to say... you may not be a naturally intelligent (NI?) person...merely a number cruncher, however complex your number crunching, error prone, biological neural pattern is!
I consider the above statement about my intelligence to be unbelievably arrogant if you are serious. At some time in the future, the human brain might be understood well enough to be described as a mere number cruncher. At present it is surely less well understood than even the most complex computer programs. Yet you claim to understand it well enough to be able to prove that one example of it is merely a number cruncher.
I can describe the basic design of Deep Blue, but defy anyone to give a similarly cogent description of how a human master plays chess. Even chess masters cannot give detailed cogent descriptions of how they make decisions. They make statements like: “My pieces were well developed and his position was cramped. An aggressive move was sure to be successful.” Even such statements might be after thoughts rather than opinions formed consciously at the time a critical move was made. I have never talked with a grand master, but I have discussed chess with players one or two levels down and way above my own ability (I am only a good coffeehouse player). Once an expert digresses from a book opening, his/her play seems to be more intuitive than rationally motivated. Of course their intuition has been honed by a thousand or more hours of play per year for many years. Yet you are claiming to be able to show that some particular human brain is merely a number cruncher.
Anybody who expects an exponential increase to continue indefinitely is a fool, especially if the exponent is as large as two.
According to Ray Kurzweil...the way our technology is evolving...2050 is just around the corner, when the computers will have the same computational power and storage of a human brain....and 18 monthes later it will double...the Moores Law! Just a few years ago, they said, perpendicular recording is a fantasy...now you can buy a 500GB hard drive with that technology. While most of us are thinking linearly, technology progresses exponentially....just think about that....if you can....
I do not know who Ray is, but I find it hard to believe that he expects Moores’s law to continue to 2050 and beyond. Note that Moore’s law is merely an empirical observation, unlike a law such as Newton’s gravitational equations. I also believe that it was actually a statement about the density of electronic circuitry rather than computing power. Note that 50 years ago, a computer did simple instructions in about 2 milliseconds (500 per second). Doubling computing power every 18 months since then would result in current computers doing about 9*10<sup>89</sup> simple instructions per second. The fastest computer in about 1960 did about 500,000 operations per second (about 2 microseconds per operation). Moore’s law applied to the 1955 speed would predict about 900 million per second in 1960, and applying Moore’s law to the 1960 figure is silly (about 9*10<sup>170</sup>).
I do not understand Ray’s remark about human computing power by 2050. Note that we probably have computers with more basic speed than a human brain today, and perhaps as much storage capacity. It is the mind’s organization that makes it better than modern computers. I see very little progress in computer architecture. Even the parallel processor systems with thousands of CPU’s have a primitive architecture compared to the human brain and do not come close to mimicking its general purpose intelligence.
As stated in a previous post, a highly specialized device is not considered to be an AI device by most people who think about AI.