The simplest explanation of machine learning (and AI) you’ll ever read

a reply to: Starbuck799

Oh because you actually write code then that means you're not expressing your FEEEEELINGS about what can be and can not be (based on your own limitations of comprehension).

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Starbuck799

Oh because you actually write code then that means you're not expressing your FEEEEELINGS about what can be and can not be (based on your own limitations of comprehension).

Not sure what you mean here, but I will guess and say yes. As a computer programmer, my feelings in writing code have no bearing on the code I write. There are no feelings in writing code, please explain what you mean further.

originally posted by: proximo
Yeah this is an oversimplification.

You can break down a human beings intelligence the same way. When you look at something you first have to classify it by pattern recognition, than equate that object to other data around you, and data you already possess about the object then decide the action that needs to be taken.

What it comes down too is

1. Is the data you have about the object accurate
2. Is your decision making process logical, and weighted correctly

Flaws with either can cause potentially dangerous results. Both of these processes will be created by humans, who make many mistakes.

This means the ai is bound to have mistakes.

This is correct. People need to stop using the term AI, it doesn't exist. It is a term made up by people who are trying to scam or frighten others. If a computer makes an error, it is not the error of the computer, it is the error of the human who programmed the computer.

a reply to: Starbuck799

You exclaimed that since you write code and we dont that we're all feelings based and youre not.

Well that is some fuzzy logic there.


PS: I know a programmer, dudes a literal genius, and he doesnt agree with you and your absolutist assertions.

Are you a literal genius?

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Starbuck799

You exclaimed that since you write code and we dont that we're all feelings based and youre not.

Well that is some fuzzy logic there.

PS: I know a programmer, dudes a literal genius, and he doesnt agree with you and your absolutist assertions.

Are you a literal genius?

My tested IQ is 142.

What I mean is that if you are not a programmer, then you are not in the weeds. You have no idea how computers work, you're just guessing on how computers work. You just think or feel you know how computers work. I didn't mean feelings as in emotions.

As to your friend who disagrees with me, saying he just disagrees is not a valid argument. Not only that, but it's hearsay, but I will take your word for it. You need to give explicit examples of what he disagrees with. What exactly does he disagree with?

a reply to: Starbuck799

Degree in Electronics & Computer Engineering.

By your logic I could exclaim You dont know how computers work blah blah blah except you know how to write up some code.

Get over yourself dude you dont even know who you're talking to across this forum.

PS: I didnt notice you able to do much about me math aspect argument. Get to work!

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Starbuck799

Degree in Electronics & Computer Engineering.

By your logic I could exclaim You dont know how computers work blah blah blah except you know how to write up some code.

Get over yourself dude you dont even know who you're talking to across this forum.

So you're not a programmer! You seem to be getting emotional here. Relax, it's just the Interwebs. No need to be embarrassed that you are not a programmer. But with all due respect, and I mean that sincerely, if you're not a programmer, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Please tell us what it is you actually do in the IT field.

a reply to: Starbuck799

Embarrassed? Coding is for the birds. I actually aced it in school, but it puts me to sleep. BUt just because I dont do it every day doesnt mean I dont understand something. I could still yet understand it better than you in scores of ways for all you know.

You study neuroscience for fun? For 20 years? Dont even get me started Einstein.

a reply to: Starbuck799

You know what, for all we know you're some sort of diabolical apologist in here running a propaganda campaign trying to hoodwink us all into a false sense of security.

And maybe you're not a programmer at all!

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Starbuck799

Embarrassed? Coding is for the birds. I actually aced it in school, but it puts me to sleep. BUt just because I dont do it every day doesnt mean I dont understand something. I could still yet understand it better than you in scores of ways for all you know.

You study neuroscience for fun? For 20 years? Dont even get me started Einstein.

Coding is for the birds? Well, the people who code are the only ones who really know what is going on, since they are the ones that write the real code and tell the computers what to do. I guess you are pissed that you are incapable of doing that, I'm sad for you that you do not have the ability to code, not everyone has the intelligence to code. It must bug you deep inside.

Hmmm... You still haven't answered questions that I asked of you, why is that?

What exactly to you do in the IT field for a living?

Also, what is it exactly that your so-called programmer friend disagrees with me about?

Why don't you answer those questions?

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Starbuck799

You know what, for all we know you're some sort of diabolical apologist in here running a propaganda campaign trying to hoodwink us all into a false sense of security.

And maybe you're not a programmer at all!

Just look at my past posts. I have already stated that I am a computer programmer by trade many times before in posts that have nothing to do with anything related to propaganda.

Just because you are losing the argument here is no reason to attack me. But I guess you have nothing else. Just admit you are wrong, and we can all move forward.

a reply to: Starbuck799

I've already done all the chest pounding with you I care to.

Dude on the previous page, obvious programmer, already poopoo'd your position. And I already did it speaking in terms of mathematics. But do keep pushing on with your OPINION as if its ABSOLUTE REALITY.

Now shove off go write Freemium games for little kids to become compulsive gamblers with.

That is your job, write?

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Starbuck799

I've already done all the chest pounding with you I care to.

Dude on the previous page, obvious programmer, already poopoo'd your position. And I already did it speaking in terms of mathematics. But do keep pushing on with your OPINION as if its ABSOLUTE REALITY.

Now shove off go write Freemium games for little kids to become compulsive gamblers with.

That is your job, write?

Still no answers to my questions.

What do you do for a living in the IT field? Looks like you don't work in IT at all.

And what exactly does your so-called programmer friend disagree with me on?

Why no answers here? I think that it is you who need to leave this thread since you are just trolling. Stop wasting bandwidth, do you know what bandwidth is? Do you know what a double is? I don't think so. Go away now. You are clogging up this thread with your BS.

a reply to: Starbuck799


Dont throw a hissy fit.

How about you get off the Ad Hominem kick, and go deal with actual arguments already posted? No? YOu'd rather challenge my employment record?

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Starbuck799

Dont throw a hissy fit.

How about you get off the Ad Hominem kick, and go deal with actual arguments already posted? No? YOu'd rather challenge my employment record?

Again no answers to my questions.

What do you do for a living in the IT field? Looks like you don't work in IT at all.

And what exactly does your so-called programmer friend disagree with me on?

Why don't you answer? Because you are a liar. You don't work in IT, and you have no programmer friend who disagrees with me.

Answer the questions Dude!!!

a reply to: Starbuck799



Yo dig this:
Ad Hominem

originally posted by: Starbuck799

originally posted by: Riffrafter
a reply to: Starbuck799

Computers cannot learn, they can only make best guess decisions based on the computer code, and data that is input either by the programmer or the data entry person, or data entered into the database by another program.

I know what you're trying say but your statement above is absolutely *not* accurate.

I do this for a living. And the systems I help design do it all the time. If they didn't, they would only be marginally useful at best.

If the point of some of these posts is the fear at what "havoc" AI can create, then I would posit there is a very real risk, but it's not from AI.

The risk comes from what people do with the information that the AI provides. Look at an AI system as a tool. And like all tools it can be misused.

There are strong safeguards in place with respect to the systems I work with. Actually - strong is a gross understatement. And the "strongest" AI systems are air-gapped to one degree or another.

But again - the safeguards are not in place to protect us from the systems - it is in place to protect us from those that might use the system for purposes it is not intended for.

I want to say "trust me" on this, but realize that it would be ridiculous to do so. So instead, I would ask that you do some research regarding same. What you *won't* find are any instances that would add credence to that fear.

Are you a computer programmer or just an IT person? Because there is a big difference. I am a computer programmer and have been for the past 25 years. I also hold a Master’s degree in computer science from the University of Toronto, before I started my illustrious career as a programmer for large corps. Including Banks, Gov't, and places like Ford and other large manufacturing companies.

That being said, there is no such thing as AI. Computers cannot learn on their own, they can only do what the programmer tells them to do based on data. Not going to keep arguing here, just read my other posts in this thread.

But I will say that you are correct in that it is all based on what humans/programmers and systems designers say what the computers will do. Computers don’t ever, ever make decisions, people do, by programming the machines. I’m not really sure why people cannot get this simple fact into their heads.

Well, my title is Systems Architect. Suitably fuzzy, n'est pas?

I don't code anymore - or at least not often, as my superiors want me to focus on the concepts and designs of the systems we build. I can code - but truth be known there are people that are far more talented at it than I. When I first turned over the coding responsibility (under duress I might add) one of the programmers there took a subroutine of mine that had 23 executable lines of code and he did it with 8. 8! I both hated and admired the hell out of him.

With that said, the systems I design today are neural network based systems. So we're not coding if/thens or other decision gates, but rather we code for an overall structure of the design we/I think hold some promise. And once completed you run/test it to make sure there are no obvious bugs.

That's a very different approach than what most people are used to.

And then the real "programming" happens. Once online, we feed the system as much information as we can stuff into it. Narrow and specific info for most systems but we always run a few instances where we simply give it a broad range of info and see what happens once that info is digested. Wikipedia has turned out to be a helluva good source. And it get's it unvarnished. Same with articles whether they be technical or general in nature.

And then we sit back and watch what happens...

We fail 95% of the time. But that 5%...makes it all worth it.

Simon says so...

a reply to: proximo

If humanity stuck to creating things that are safe we would still be in the garden of Eden i imagine.

Of course, nothing we create is mistake free, after all, we are imperfect creatures, thus so will be our creations, even AI.

That, however, does not mean we should not do so.

Why do you assume that the consequences of AI would be the human population being wiped out?

Would you kill God if you came across him because he was imperfect?

Then why should any artificial intelligence we create kill us?

a reply to: andy06shake

Because we are and always will be a THREAT.

Its not unlike Communism (which works great in a small village type situation) in this regard, where it doesnt work without the BOOT because as soon as people decide they arent going to go with the program, then you get Stalinism.

And theres the angle where unlike our other arts, this time we're talking about enabling the most profound intelligence ever contemplated. Go check out what happened to the Native Americans, across the entirely of the New World, for endless examples of superior tech etc running roughshod over a people.

And here we're also inherently talking about groups of Have's "humans" turning Transhuman and interlocking with said tech. Rapid evolution and we're to expect that its going to amplify all but our worst traits? Take a look across all of human history, and I dare anyone to find an example that would have us assume that the greatest war there ever was isnt inherent. This war wont even require a full on AGI running it, the transhumanism alone will be enugh to trigger it (and I can argue we're already seeing it in motion and its already staggering). But do hook an AGI into that, into Them, and Them into the AGI global brain...

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

"Because we are and always will be a THREAT."

To ourselves as well as the rest of nature that is.

However, we compete for resources, food, water, and land.

We squabble and kill one another over the smallest slight not to mention religious indifference and race.

Any AI we create or emerges may not be limited by such madness nor require resources in the same manner that we do other than energy.

There is no reason why we could not coexist or even eventually merge with such an intelligence.

Truth is we are already doing so to a fashion by way of our mobile devices and the interactive application associated with such, we pretty much never put them down.