Artificial intelligence seems like a modelling program for interfaces of possible processes forming into another possible or greater architectures of further or differing processes. In what capacity is it intelligence and not simply a continuous flux of ever-increasing builds of emergent information that ISN'T necessarily feasibility in function but rather feasibility of new emergent abstractions? More clearly,how does artificial intelligence create valid data we can deem as intelligence as oppose to simply new avenues of abstraction that are fixed to our criteria of validity?

  • $\begingroup$ More simply, are you asking whether the AI that we create is limited by our limits? $\endgroup$ – nbro Dec 29 '18 at 17:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @nbro In a simple sense, yes, but further, how do we know our AI work at all if work is distinguished by how we perceive what is occurring in the program? Where does that leave the function of the data in terms of feasibility of actual development on it's own? $\endgroup$ – Heraclitus II Dec 29 '18 at 17:24
  • $\begingroup$ It depends on what you mean by "work". What do you mean by "leave the function of the data"? $\endgroup$ – nbro Dec 29 '18 at 17:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @nbro Let's say you're trying to have the AI learn something specific and then you give it a program to be able to learn the particular thing. The input that you put into the program, and the way it gets to the answer we deem sensible, how do we know it is sensible if the input/output is based on a function we created? In what sense is it actually functioning on it's own? Forgive me, it's hard for me to unpack some a complex question. $\endgroup$ – Heraclitus II Dec 29 '18 at 17:31

The term AI, short for Artificial Intelligence, is misleading because it hides the technical details. In the mainstream assumption, AI is some kind of intelligent software which acts autonomously and replaces a human operator. But that is not the principle how AI is created in software. A working AI system is mostly a human-to-computer interface and not an autonomous software. It's inner working is similar to what a computer mouse can do. Nobody would argue, that the mouse pointer on the screen has some kind of intelligence, but in reality the mousepointer acts on a human-level.

The philosophical debate around Artificial Intelligence is driven by competitions in which the creation of an AI system is desired. The game consists of many instances. At first, the moderator is starting the AI challenge, he asks for an AI. Then the participants are creating software. Their AI software works internally as a human-machine-interface. The feature of the software are evaluated by the moderator of the competition. What I want to express is, that the term AI is connected to a competition in which the creation of an AI is mandatory. The definition of what an AI is depends on the competition in which the AI has to be created.

| improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ Very informative, thank you! Just to clarify, are you saying also, that the functioning of the AI as an actual function of the AI is actually dependent on the human-machine-interface and the furthering of the definition, even beyond such a dependence perhaps, would depend and still be limited to, competition and nothing outside of the competition can emerge to have an autonomous function where we COULD interface but the AI's function wouldn't be dependent on our ''definition'' of it? $\endgroup$ – Heraclitus II Dec 29 '18 at 17:52
  • $\begingroup$ @HeraclitusII Perhaps we should define “we”. If we is equal to humans, than the humans can have access to an AI system or not. With an AI we can do lots of useful things, for example automated manufacturing. Without an AI, we are less productive. If i understand your question right, you're asking what happens, if we are disconnected from the AI and the AI works by it's own. Such kind of work mode is technically not possible. It makes only sense in a metaphorical description in which the emphasis is on high productivity without human intervention. $\endgroup$ – Manuel Rodriguez Dec 29 '18 at 18:09
  • $\begingroup$ You have understood me perfectly. Thanks again for your additional input. I have a better understanding now. That is sort of what I thought when proposing this question but I got confused with the metaphorical used as real explanations used by others in this area. $\endgroup$ – Heraclitus II Dec 29 '18 at 18:13

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.