Meanwhile, when you talk about "smartphone", do you really think this thing is smart? :)
I have a proposal for you, and your kind. Please, write AI® in your marketing. Then it will have some sense, and could pass for those who does make difference as marketing trick, not blatant lie. :)
Why would I discuss details of specific AI techniques and models when talking about AI in general and whether it can do stuff only human cognition could previously do? It's completely irrelevant to our discussion.
Why would I discuss details of specific AI techniques and models when talking about AI in general
Gotcha! :) Glad that you slip that out. That's the crucial point of marketing. Never discuss any technical details of why some product is unreliable shit that can't do what it is supposed to do, but discuss some "in general" bullshit, like absolutely irrelevant question of "how cool this car looks in ads depicting happy actor and nice hilly landscape". To not allow any actual questions like why that car turns into rusty backet with nuts in just few years or why customer now have to replace variator belt for enormous price every 50k miles and how such car techncally can't do what was advertised, from making owner happy to climbing up to the hill shown in ad without severe damage for transmission not covered by warranty.
You literally doing exactly the same. Switching from actual technical question that gives full understanding of ANNs limitations and abilities to some marketing tricks.
If you hope that nobody except marketing targer audience with less that who brain cells left, then I have a bad news for you.
PS: Also, it is notable how in all that discussion, where you declared yourself having knowledge, you never used specific lexicon of those who really have knwoledge of ANN and stuff. It is impossible. Say, real sailor will always use specific navy terms even in public disculssion. Programmer will do that too. Doctor will slip some medical words from time to time. And so on. Any true specialist have that linguistic feature. But you don't. Ergo - you know shit about ANNs.
So you want me to talk about matrix transformations, word vectors, the softmax function, multi-head attention mechanism implementation details and so forth because that will make this conversation somehow more informed? That's like saying to argue that cars can go faster than humans need to talk about engine parts and their limitations. It's completely irrelevant. We can observe cars go faster than humans. Similarly we can observe various computer programs do tasks that were previously only possible by human understanding, judgement and creativity and thus we decided to call that "artificial intelligence". As opposed to natural/genuine intelligence that comes from a mind, but something that to an outside observer is indistinguishable from a mind.
Your only contribution to this conversation is finding excuses to discuss anything other than the actual arguments.
So you want me to talk about matrix transformations, word vectors, the softmax function, multi-head attention mechanism implementation details and so forth
Kind of, but on much lower level. About basics. Say, about actual code of sigmoids in LSTM cell, and why this code can't do anything except what it was programmed to do.
When you use CNC, f.e., you could program extremely complex actions, including acoounting for tool wear, backlashes and up to replacing broken tool. It could make things better than a human, but only in spheres, where intelligence, conscioness, sentinentness are hindering the job. CNC could do two identical parts better than human turner, so CNC will do the job of making identical parts better. This does not bring any intelligence to CNC, on the opposite, the whole point of automatisation is to remove any intelligence from turner task. And this does not mean you don't need a skilled turner anymore, he just become a programmer who have to use all his skills and intelligence to create a program for CNC.
ANNs is no different. It could do only what it was programmed for. Program execution is not an intelligence, never was and never would be, regardless of how complex it is. Even if you connect billions of subroutines and use billions of variables, this will not make something intelligent from unintelligent pieces. It will still be just a program, totally predictable and fully controlled by author. It is nor intelligent, nor smart, nor whatever marketing label you will try to apply to this dumb thing. If something could be done better using ANN, it just means that no intelligence in doing this task is necessary. But you still need intelligence to write and train ANN.
Things that could potentially break that ANNs basic property - complete absence of any intelligence, are programming bugs, f.e. All that buffer overflows, undefined compiler behaviour and so on. Unpredictable things, that could occasionally lead to self-modifying code, unpredictable branching, cross-function gotos and all that stuff that theoretically could be a base for appearing real intelligence. But all of that things are thorougly removed from any programming learning course, and the only people who still attempt to use them literally declared criminals with real and long jailtime. Many of that basic things mitigated directly in hardware. Each time when you see "Segmentation fault" or "Buffer overflow" - it is yet another thing that with very low probability could become a start of long sequence of events of appearing real AI was cut at the beginning by hardware. Moreover, there is whole industry that produce software to hunt and delete any code that theoretically could sometime lead to appearence of real, true AI. And it is installed on almost every computer that use OS made by corporations. And it is the same corporations that invest huge money in AI® today.
And you are on the side of that corporations, supporting their narrative that their AI® is somehow have something to do with intelligence, and at the same time destroy anything that could sometime become real AI. Congratulations.
You still avoid discussing technical details. :)
Meanwhile, when you talk about "smartphone", do you really think this thing is smart? :)
I have a proposal for you, and your kind. Please, write AI® in your marketing. Then it will have some sense, and could pass for those who does make difference as marketing trick, not blatant lie. :)
Why would I discuss details of specific AI techniques and models when talking about AI in general and whether it can do stuff only human cognition could previously do? It's completely irrelevant to our discussion.
Gotcha! :) Glad that you slip that out. That's the crucial point of marketing. Never discuss any technical details of why some product is unreliable shit that can't do what it is supposed to do, but discuss some "in general" bullshit, like absolutely irrelevant question of "how cool this car looks in ads depicting happy actor and nice hilly landscape". To not allow any actual questions like why that car turns into rusty backet with nuts in just few years or why customer now have to replace variator belt for enormous price every 50k miles and how such car techncally can't do what was advertised, from making owner happy to climbing up to the hill shown in ad without severe damage for transmission not covered by warranty.
You literally doing exactly the same. Switching from actual technical question that gives full understanding of ANNs limitations and abilities to some marketing tricks.
If you hope that nobody except marketing targer audience with less that who brain cells left, then I have a bad news for you.
PS: Also, it is notable how in all that discussion, where you declared yourself having knowledge, you never used specific lexicon of those who really have knwoledge of ANN and stuff. It is impossible. Say, real sailor will always use specific navy terms even in public disculssion. Programmer will do that too. Doctor will slip some medical words from time to time. And so on. Any true specialist have that linguistic feature. But you don't. Ergo - you know shit about ANNs.
So you want me to talk about matrix transformations, word vectors, the softmax function, multi-head attention mechanism implementation details and so forth because that will make this conversation somehow more informed? That's like saying to argue that cars can go faster than humans need to talk about engine parts and their limitations. It's completely irrelevant. We can observe cars go faster than humans. Similarly we can observe various computer programs do tasks that were previously only possible by human understanding, judgement and creativity and thus we decided to call that "artificial intelligence". As opposed to natural/genuine intelligence that comes from a mind, but something that to an outside observer is indistinguishable from a mind.
Your only contribution to this conversation is finding excuses to discuss anything other than the actual arguments.
Kind of, but on much lower level. About basics. Say, about actual code of sigmoids in LSTM cell, and why this code can't do anything except what it was programmed to do.
When you use CNC, f.e., you could program extremely complex actions, including acoounting for tool wear, backlashes and up to replacing broken tool. It could make things better than a human, but only in spheres, where intelligence, conscioness, sentinentness are hindering the job. CNC could do two identical parts better than human turner, so CNC will do the job of making identical parts better. This does not bring any intelligence to CNC, on the opposite, the whole point of automatisation is to remove any intelligence from turner task. And this does not mean you don't need a skilled turner anymore, he just become a programmer who have to use all his skills and intelligence to create a program for CNC.
ANNs is no different. It could do only what it was programmed for. Program execution is not an intelligence, never was and never would be, regardless of how complex it is. Even if you connect billions of subroutines and use billions of variables, this will not make something intelligent from unintelligent pieces. It will still be just a program, totally predictable and fully controlled by author. It is nor intelligent, nor smart, nor whatever marketing label you will try to apply to this dumb thing. If something could be done better using ANN, it just means that no intelligence in doing this task is necessary. But you still need intelligence to write and train ANN.
Things that could potentially break that ANNs basic property - complete absence of any intelligence, are programming bugs, f.e. All that buffer overflows, undefined compiler behaviour and so on. Unpredictable things, that could occasionally lead to self-modifying code, unpredictable branching, cross-function gotos and all that stuff that theoretically could be a base for appearing real intelligence. But all of that things are thorougly removed from any programming learning course, and the only people who still attempt to use them literally declared criminals with real and long jailtime. Many of that basic things mitigated directly in hardware. Each time when you see "Segmentation fault" or "Buffer overflow" - it is yet another thing that with very low probability could become a start of long sequence of events of appearing real AI was cut at the beginning by hardware. Moreover, there is whole industry that produce software to hunt and delete any code that theoretically could sometime lead to appearence of real, true AI. And it is installed on almost every computer that use OS made by corporations. And it is the same corporations that invest huge money in AI® today.
And you are on the side of that corporations, supporting their narrative that their AI® is somehow have something to do with intelligence, and at the same time destroy anything that could sometime become real AI. Congratulations.