Skip to main content

AI or AI, Which Is It?

Artificial Intelligence, a noun that has become a household term. Most refer to it as AI, which is less of a mouthful. Where and when did this term become real? [1] Apparently John McCarthy coined this phrase in 1956 at a conference.  Vannevar Bush and Alan Turing both mused about computers being intelligence and being able to enhance human intelligence or even simulate human-like thinking.

Is this thinking really "artificial" though? To suggest it being artificial would imply that there is a non-artificial type of intelligence. Otherwise, there is just intelligence, or thinking, or cognition. 

The famous Turing Test may be the source of this "artificial" notion. If there is an intelligent series of responses to a human interaction, and those responses are created using a computer program, then that is considered artificial. 

On a philosophical note, though, the programs are written by humans. Those programs, using rules given by humans, are creating responses that a human would create when the rules are triggered. A strict rule following human would, arguably, create the same stream of responses that a computer program would produce. Is that still "artificial?"

I suggest the narrative change. We are not making "artificial" intelligence tools, rather we are making Automated Intelligence tools. Whether it is ChatGPT or Gemini or CoPilot, the output is just an automated processing response to known inputs. 

When AlphaGo won a match of Go against a human it was not an artificial win. This was an automated win using rules and logic that optimized the response to the human's play style and followed some programming that was optimized for success.

Automated Intelligence, a term that makes AI more palatable because it doesn't anthropomorphize the notion of computer generated intelligence. 

[1] https://courses.cs.washington.edu/courses/csep590/06au/projects/history-ai.pdf 


Popular posts from this blog

The Spinning Brain

Intuition is a phenomenon of the biological brain that doesn't have any physical explanation. Many people experience intuition with varying degrees of success. There are a variety of theories regarding intuition [1] and some people regard intuition with much caution [2] . Yet, I am happily in the camp that has learned to respect my intuition as it has proven time and time again to be correct. Recently, though, I'd been thinking about intuition and soothsaying . There are many cases of people who claim to see the future, whatever that might be. Maybe there is something to be said about this mystical phenomenon. Maybe there is a real physical process at work that we just haven't thought of yet. To this end, I am proposing a theory about human intuition. This theory, though requires some background in quantum mechanics . Specifically, quantum entanglement . I'm not the only person who has theorized about quantum entanglement and its role in biological congnition and th...
Read more

Stock Option Debt Income

The 2024 Presidential election has brought out a topic of interest that seems to have been perverted. There is this "Taxing Unrealized Capital Gains" [1] movement that is being falsely attributed to Vice President Harris. Clearly, this is a change in the revenue code that was designed by someone in office long before VP Harris was in office. My money is on Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. What is this change in the revenue code though? For that you have to understand what Silicon Valley zillionaires are doing with their stock options. Many of these people in this special economic area have huge discounts on stock prices for companies that are not public yet, or are public and can not be sold [2]. To be fair to these holders of equity, banks allow them to finance debt using leverage against those options. If you hold an option that is worth $5M then a bank might lend you a share of that value, thus realizing a debt against the option [3]. This is a fair debt instrument and...
Read more

Number of Primes

Anderson's Theorem (a) The number of primes in [1,n] is no more than 2+floor(n/2). The probability of n being prime when n is not prime is 1/2 - see Dasgupta,Papadimitriou,Vazirani "Algorithms" page 26. Therefore, the E(pi(n)) is n/2. (b) There does not exist another set of adjacent primes other than {1,2,3} 5: 2 + floor(5/2) = 2 + 2 = 4:=> {1,2,3,5} : 4 <= 4 7: 2 + floor(7/2) = 2 + 3 = 5 => {1,2,3,5,7} : 5 <= 5 11: 2 + floor(11/2) = 2 + 5 = 7 => {1,2,3,5,7,11} 6 <= 7 26: 2 + floor(26/2) = 15 => {1,2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23} : 10 <= 15 Lagrange's Theorem is Inaccurate Lagrange's theorem about primes states that pi(x) is the number of primes <= x. The pi(x) is approximately x/ln(x). He postulated that the lim of pi(x)/(x/lnx) as x-> infinity was 1. This is incorrect. if the number of primes is bounded by n/2 then refactoring and reducing Lagrange's Theorem results in the lim of ln(x) as x approaches infinity. This is alwa...
Read more