| |||||||||||||
Computing failsComputing failsPosted Oct 17, 2012 19:23 UTC (Wed) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)In reply to: Computing fails by man_ls Parent article: Plasma Active Three released
Mobile agents are not yet there.
Neural networks are widely used in things like text and speech recognition (they are not all that they were hyped up to be, but they are still useful).
Ontologies are dead - they're semantic computing thingy, duh.
Expert systems, fuzzy logic and AI are used more and more: just check those Kinect sensors or Google's self-driving cars.
I'm sure, we can find even more dismal areas than semantic computing, but it's not an easy task :)
(Log in to post comments)
Computing fails Posted Oct 17, 2012 19:31 UTC (Wed) by boudewijn (subscriber, #14185) [Link]
I've worked on mobile agents for five or six years and I learned two things: to code really well and that mobile agents are snake oil. There's nothing a mobile agent can do that rpc can't do.
Computing fails Posted Oct 17, 2012 19:34 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Well, there is one thing mobile agents can do much better than RPC: expose your machine to potentially malicious code and perhaps even infect it.
Computing fails Posted Oct 17, 2012 19:41 UTC (Wed) by boudewijn (subscriber, #14185) [Link]
Yeah... That's one thing that made it a tough sell to one of the larger Dutch banks who needed a kind of remote monitoring system for basel-N compliance.
Computing fails Posted Oct 17, 2012 19:50 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] I don't think a self-driving car would qualify as "Artificial Intelligence" as it was understood 20 or 30 years ago. Sure, there are very clever algorithms involved, but there is no learning involved by the part of the machine. Do you think the robot will adapt to driving in e.g. snowy roads unless the algorithms have been programmed to deal with it? It is just that we (meaning Google engineers) have got much better at developing adaptive algorithms.Compare with the Turing test: impersonating a real human in a conversation. I don't think Wolfram Alpha qualifies, even though I have had many conversations more boring than a single search in the Alpha engine.
Computing fails Posted Oct 17, 2012 20:14 UTC (Wed) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] I expect a self-driving car would have indeed been seen as AI, just like chess playing was. Remember one of the central tenets of AI, as I learned in my AI courses so many years ago: once we get something working and understand how to solve the problem, it's not AI anymore...
Computing fails Posted Oct 17, 2012 21:15 UTC (Wed) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]
> Do you think the robot will adapt to driving in e.g. snowy roads unless the algorithms have been programmed to deal with it?
Yes.
Google's self driving cars are programmed with a mix of clever algorithms, classical AI algorithms and new machine learning techniques. All put together leads to some surprising results on the tests.
I had the opportunity to take Thrun and Norvig's course on AI (www.ai-class.com), and I can say that the field has advanced more in the latest 5 years alone than in the previous 30. It's well worth the effort:
|
|||||||||||||