Give arguments in favour of "Agents are not Artificial Intelligent systems"?
955768
Your definition of agent implies a mapping of consecutive sequences of causes to the appropriate courses of action. Intelligence by definition (be it artificial or not) requires a certain faculty of logical reasoning. Intelligence is not necessarily limited to one channel of input and certainly not limited to the instant "cause and effect" mechanism.\n\nThe artificial aspect of the proposition seems curious as I am wondering as how exactly a faculty of reasoning could be artificially constructed. This could be the weak point of the argument.
512340
This isn't change; people like youself have been making such arrogant claims for the past two centuries.\nAnything you build will be deterministic. You may say it can "learn" but it's behaviour will be subject to how you program it and the environment it is in.\nHuman brain functions are non-deterministic. In short you can't copy it.
24331
AI and robots, etc. would be a boon to society if they could accomplish all the jobs that ordinary people do not want to do or are too dangerous to do.  There will always remain jobs that people like to do such as compose music.  Also many people would have to "manage" the robots to accomplish what is useful to society.  You would have to manage your own personal robot.  A person relieved of all responsibilities for work (in Utopia?) could devote their entire life to learning; but would they study so hard if there were no useful applications for their knowledge because robots cared for all needs?  People also have emotional needs and it is hard to imagine that a robot could substitute for a loving spouse or the family dog.  Those are "jobs" too.
298936
The thing is nobody things...\nThe reactions produced by human beings are the products of the huge data base THE BRAIN.\nI will xplain.\nA person is asked to eat a cake.\none person handles with hand and eats it\nAnother handles it in a plate and eats with a spoon..\nAnother in another way..\n\nHere the task is same,but the reactions of varoius persons are different since in the database of 1st person it is written that he should do that in that way.so he did like that  and in the same way for others.So not only humans but machines also donot think.\n\nIf we come to the concept of creativity it is the reaction produced by the brain when the data intermixes with other data giving out a new data.\n\n4 example take the same situation as above eating a cake..\none person ate with his hand and the other with a spoon .\n\nanother person who saw the both will  take it in the hand and eats with a spoon.that is he had mixed the data and got the result.\n\nthe risk of developing artificial intelligence is the same as people with corrupted thoughts.if the computers can produce bad reactions it results in  many hazards...\n\nThat's the thing.
383517
What make you think this is a human generated response? \n\nYou may be interested in the turning test contest (see source below)\n\n\nPull these from some notes I had from a leature called\n"Computers versus Common Sense An Engineering Approach to AI"  -- was availabe on the web (my link is now dead)\n\n\nSome accurate computer(C) generated response to human(H) questions\n\nH: I will ask you some simple question s and give simple  commands.\nC: Do you think your plan will succeed?\nH: I want you to give me correct answers and relevant responses?\nC: Why do you want me to give you correct answers and relevant responses?\n\n\nH: Where is Sue's Nose, When sue is in her house?\nC: Where it belongs, Try searching the Web.\n\nH: How is the father of Andy's Mother related to Andy?\nC: Fine as far as I know.
1100311
Its an argument against AI.\n\nIn simplcity it is saying understanding does not come from memorizing.  Another way to put it is that grammar does not come from vocabulary.  If you learn all the words, doesn't imply you know WHAT someone "means".\n\nHow does this pertain to intelligence? Glad you asked.\n\nSuppose that, many years from now, we have constructed a computer which behaves as if it understands Chinese. In other words, the computer takes Chinese characters as input, consults a large look-up table (as all computers can be described as doing), and then produces other Chinese characters as output. Suppose that this computer performs this task so convincingly that it easily passes the Turing test. In other words, it convinces a human Chinese speaker that it is a Chinese speaker. All the questions the human asks are responded to appropriately, such that the Chinese speaker is convinced that he or she is talking to another Chinese speaker. The conclusion proponents of strong AI would like to draw is that the computer understands Chinese, just as the person does.\n\nNow, Searle asks us to suppose that he is sitting inside the computer. In other words, he is in a small room in which he receives Chinese characters, looks them up on look-up table, and returns the Chinese characters that are indicated by the table. Searle notes, of course, that he doesn't understand a word of Chinese. Furthermore, his lack of understanding goes to show, he argues, that computers don't understand Chinese either, because they are in the same situation as he is. They are mindless manipulators of symbols, just as he is - and they don't understand what they're 'saying', just as he doesn't.
972858
Actually this is not a straw-man argument but it need not demonstrate inconstancy in the person. They could hold for instance (Incorrectly in my opinion) that the foetus is not yet a living organism and therefore is not yet possessed of those rights that they afford all life and which the lobsters therefore possess.\n\nA straw-man argument is one in which you present your opponents argument in a form where it is much weaker than it need be, perhaps by omitting some crucial point or by misconstruing the argument. Then like a straw-man would be it is easier to knock down.
521225
I agree. \nAt least, you are not proof of intelligence.
373774
Autonomous means no human interaction needed.\n\nSo an autonomous robot would be a machine that can operate itself.
1130573
not necessarily...it is simulating intelligence in general. It means the Artificial entity is able to learn, reason, gain cognitive abilities, adapt, and so on. Humans have all of these abilities, but a machine could possibly do all of these things (providing they have A.I.) faster and more efficient, surpassing human intelligence quickly.
44398
No. In fact, the whole point of Intelligent Design is merely to cause a public debate on evolution. The fact is that Intelligent Design starts with a conclusion (Creationism), then works out a package which was designed to be school-friendly, and provide "evidence" which might trick people who are unfamiliar with the real science of the situation. The ID movement's claims that ID is intended to be non-specific in its creator is revealed by the Wedge document to be a lie.
894973
Richard Dawkins argues that highly complex systems can be produced by a series of very small randomly-generated steps, rather than an intelligent designer. He further points out the self-refuting nature of the argument: that if complex things must have been intellegently designed by something more complex than themselves, then anything posited as this complex designer (i.e. God) must also have been designed by something yet more complex, according to the argument.
194536
The premises in argument 1 are valid, but the conclusion is unsound. The premises do not support the conclusion. Premise 1 does not effectively establish that "teaching and helping" is a quality limited to persons. Therefore, it cannot be concluded from the premises that electricity is a person.\n\nArgument 2 is also valid in premises but unsound in conclusion. Again, neither of the premises establish that teaching and helping is an ability that only persons possess. The conclusion obviously falls apart when we consider the alternate conclusion that is equally unsupportable by the premises: Therefore, persons are the holy spirit.
158087
There is no such thing. Artificial intelligence hasn't progressed enough to reliably mimic natural language understanding, much less understand and solve word problems. Looks like you're stuck doing your own homework.
33666
First of all I would like to say that, for all the looking that I have done, I have yet to find a creation of a truly artificially intelligent machine in a general form, that is to say not a dedicated system. If someone has, please somehow let me know. I would be interested in studying it.\n\nWhat I have seen is limited forms of adaptive programming in dedicated systems. These are probably done in whatever language the designers wished to use, and then compiled into the machine code for the processor in the dedicated system.\n\nAnother thing that I have seen is systems that use random number generators to mimic the relatively unpredictable nature of intelligent beings. Intelligent minds do not use random behavior, to do so would require too much effort, which is fine for a computer but is not going to happen with the lazy mind of the biological brain. This is not intelligence. It is merely a simulation.\n\nThe software that is used depends on the approach that you wish to take. For a dedicated system, I would use the assembly language for the processor in the system. It is the language that has the most control.\n\nFor general purpose AI on a PC type of platform, I would use a higher level language to save programming time, such as Visual Basic or ProLog. The language that is used is a matter of preference of the programmer, though different languages are structured to make different processes easier or more difficult.\n\nBut to answer to your question, true artificial intelligence has not been created yet. I am pretty sure we would have heard about it if it had been.
787009
True artificial intelligence is probably not going to happen for a long time.  We still have a very imperfect idea of how the brain works except to say that it is probably quite different from how a computer works.  But even if we ever get to a computer that passes the Turing test which is the current standard for deciding whether a program is intelligent the next question would be: Is it really alive?  Would a so-called silicon life form have self awareness or consciousness or would it just be a machine going through the motions?\n\nOf course before we try to answer that we have to decide whether we humans are more than carbon based machines going through the motions.\n\nI think that before we replace ourselves with silicon minds we will find a way to enhance our bodies with artificial parts (think: a human brain and nervous system inside some sort of mechanical "body").
58541
i thikn this page will help you with all your artificial intelligence questions\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence