### Lies, lies, and a bunch of A.I.

Not to long back I had written a "rock, paper, scissors" program, but today decided to modify it. I wrote in some variables which the program would use to store result data for comparisson. My purpose in doing this was to get the computer to recognize repetitive pattern. This way if I always picked "rock" for example, the computer would not make a random pick but would rather show favor to picking "paper", but if I switched to repeating a different choice, the computer would adjust it's choice acordingly. The only way to keep the computer randomly choosing was for me to always randomly choose.

Now to the casual observer, this would seem like the computer was learning and adjusting its stratedgy to try and beat me. More so if this technique were applied to a more complex game.

Sadly this is not the case. Artificial Intelligence is just an illusion, mere automation in action. A computer will always be just a calculator.
I don't agree with you. Doing what you describes is sure possible, but it just needs a little bit of what people call "effort". It isn't really that hard to do if you think about it. The computer can be made to store the player' moves in an array, and then a function can then try to detect a pattern in his moves. The computer's first 10 moves can be of a pattern too, such that you get to record his reaction with each preceding move the computer does. Or even simpler, you can just make a function which checks the last x moves the human player has made, relate the number of each move as a ratio, and let the computer do the against move of the least performed move the human player has made. Perhaps, the computer should also do the against move for the highest performed if it's ratio to the others is extraordinarily large (in case the human player decides to stick on a move).
Yes there are even other ideas to impliment, but in the end the computer is not actually thinking, such as the term artificial intellengence might imply, it is just carrying out its instructions.
 Not to long back I had written a "rock, paper, scissors" program, but today decided to modify it. I wrote in some variables which the program would use to store result data for comparisson. My purpose in doing this was to get the computer to recognize repetitive pattern. This way if I always picked "rock" for example, the computer would not make a random pick but would rather show favor to picking "paper", but if I switched to repeating a different choice, the computer would adjust it's choice acordingly. The only way to keep the computer randomly choosing was for me to always randomly choose. Now to the casual observer, this would seem like the computer was learning and adjusting its stratedgy to try and beat me. More so if this technique were applied to a more complex game. Sadly this is not the case. Artificial Intelligence is just an illusion, mere automation in action. A computer will always be just a calculator.

You know, this is a serious topic of academic research, with many decades of study behind it from dedicated people. I'm not sure the research you describe in your post is quite thorough enough to justify such a bold conclusion.

If you're serious about understanding A.I. I suggest you read some proper books on the topic, rather than concluding that, just because this one thing you did doesn't count as A.I. then it must be impossible.
Last edited on
Doesn't the word artificial have a meaning that imply that it's not real intelligence?
> Sadly this is not the case. Artificial Intelligence is just an illusion,
> mere automation in action. A computer will always be just a calculator.

That is the essence of John Searle's 'Chinese Room Argument'
The Chinese Room argument, and responses by its critics, are neatly summarized here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/#4

Lets be honest here. It is the goal of a crafty coder to convince the observer of their program, that they have created a thinking machine. We can and often do, as programers, write such code that it mimics typical human thought process, sometimes very convincingly. But the computer still is only following its predefined directives, and giving predefined output. If you encounter a program and you are certain that it is thinking and learning, then you have been fooled by the smoke and mirrors of the programming world, and the creators of such program are quite pleased with themselves.

Here are some common tricks employed by programmers. Conditional checks. Random response. Pattern recogniction. Event handlers. Data comparission. Result checks. And a gradual increase in challenge.

Put enough of these together and hell, it might as well be thinking. This is the same stuff our own brains do. But we as thinkers can do this on our own. Computers have to be programmed and never stray from what they are instructed to do.
Last edited on
You should go and explain this to all the people who've spent their lives studying and researching this. I'm sure they'd be amazed at your superior knowledge and understanding of the topic. They'd probably make you their king, they'd be so amazed.

In any case, this is a topic for the Lounge, not here.
Artificial intelligence doesn't necessary need to mimic humans, unless that is part of the problem you are trying to solve. Often we just want to solve a problem best way possible and how humans solve it is not important.

It is learning in the sense that it uses previous input to try to improve its performance which is what we also do.
you want to believe a computer can think for itself. fine then see if you can teach your computer to make original art work, to express itself creatively.
Are you trying to compare your intelligence to a computer's? Because that would be absurd.
Maybe this was a topic better suited for the lounge, but since we are here...

I would like to hear everyone's official opinion.
The question is: Is artificial intelligence real or just an illusion.

I believe A.I. is fake. I have been working with A.I. for about 3 years now, and have come up with some pretty crafty tricks myself. I personally do not believe a computer can think for itself beyond what we program into it. A computer is a calculator only.

Now share your view. Don't be shy. This is a no judgment zone.
Peter87 wrote:
Doesn't the word artificial have a meaning that imply that it's not real intelligence?

No. Artificial does not mean fake or phony. It just means "human created". IE: the opposite of "natural" intelligence.

Manga wrote:
you want to believe a computer can think for itself. fine then see if you can teach your computer to make original art work, to express itself creatively.

Of course nobody can do this currently, as we lack the technological ability (computers are nowhere near as fast as the human brain)... and there's still a lot about conscious thought that we do not understand.

But that certainly doesn't mean this is impossible. Given enough time, study, and technological advancements I'm sure it'd be possible.

Keep it in perspective though. The human brain took millions and millions of years to evolve to what it is now. We've had computers for about 50 years.
 Keep it in perspective though. The human brain took millions and millions of years to evolve to what it is now. We've had computers for about 50 years.

If there ever was an opinion to be respected it was that... good point. :)
Manga wrote:
Sadly this is not the case. Artificial Intelligence is just an illusion, mere automation in action. A computer will always be just a calculator.
Nobody said Artificial Intelligence was Real Intelligence, so I don't know what your problem is.
 Nobody said Artificial Intelligence was Real Intelligence, so I don't know what your problem is.

It was not the artificial part, but the intelligence.
Intelligence meaning, brain power, smarts, the ability to think.
 Intelligence meaning, brain power, smarts, the ability to think.

To my knowledge, there is little difference between how our brain functions and how computers function. I see no reason (apart from technological restraints) why a fully sentient being could not be artificially created.
You can't just ignore the adjective before the noun.
But then she would have to buy a new computer... it's the whole "companies are building products to break" conspiracy.

Who reported his post?
Last edited on
You don't suppose the computers themselves took offense to me saying they can't think... What if they reported my post?

But then that would mean they are rising up against us. It's finally happening! Run!
Last edited on
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.