Disputatio:Intellegentia artificialis

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

disciplina scientiae computatrorum[fontem recensere]

I really want to say "a branch of computer science". This makes it sound like it is the discipline of computer science. Well, it is a discipline of computer science. Would be be una disciplina ex ...? --Autophile 01:10, 9 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Est genus informaticae (?) 03:54, 9 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
Est informatica vel plenius scientia informatica.--Rafaelgarcia 13:38, 9 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
Information science is different than computer science, no? So shouldn't it be scientia computatrorum? Also, my question related to differentiating a discipline (or branch) of computer science, as opposed to the discipline of computer science (which means something completely different). --Autophile 15:29, 9 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
True, scientia informatica would better translate "information science" as opposed to informatica which would better translate "computer science" as such. Note how latin maps more closely to the terminology of the romance languages, rather than english. In latin scientia computatrorum would mean the same as ars computatrorum = computer engineering, which studies how computers are constructed. Whereas in english computer science is actually the science of how computers are programmed, how data structures are organized, etc...which in latin is [[[informatica]], as it is in the other romance languages.--Rafaelgarcia 15:43, 9 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
Note however, that the english page on information science "scientia informatica" is disputed as to what it actually consists in as distinguished from computer science "informatica". Rather than jump in creating a page of dubious content, I would concentrate on pages whose content is generally agreed, unless you think you can resolve the dispute on en:.--Rafaelgarcia 15:46, 9 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that there is any dispute that artificial intelligence is a branch of computer science. And I don't think there is any dispute about what computer science is. I haven't created a page about information science because (a) it doesn't interest me, and (b) I haven't created a link to it. Unless you mean to say that I shouldn't create links when I don't know what the correct term for the link is. But I do agree that computer science = informatica. So given the term, how do you say "a branch of [the science called] X"? --Autophile 16:00, 9 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
That is true enough that artificial intelligence is a branch of computer science ("informatica"). I think the latin way to say "X is a branch of Y" is "X est bracchium Y-genetive"="X is an arm of Y". or instead I think you could say "X est disciplina intra scientiam Y-accusative or genetive" ="X is a discipline whtin the science Y (or of Y)" . Or you could say "X is a subdiscipline of Y" = "X est subdisciplina Y-genetive".--Rafaelgarcia 16:13, 9 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
I think I would prefer bracchium or subdisciplina. They seem elegent enough. At least with these terms, any ambiguity in syntax and grammar would be removed by semantic context. --Autophile 16:30, 9 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
In the context of this page, you can also just say in better latin form: "X est disciplina informatica" without any genetive.--Rafaelgarcia 16:33, 9 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
Could you explain the grammar behind that? X est disciplina informatica seems to translate to "X is a discipline, computer science, ..." --Autophile 16:54, 9 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
No, here /informatica/ works as an adjective: X is a discipline related to informatics. Cato censor 17:10, 9 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
Or, since informatic is an English adjective: X est disciplina informatica = 'X is an informatic science'. IacobusAmor 01:10, 10 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
Strangely enough, Cassell's says 'branch' is "ramus (in most senses of the English word)." IacobusAmor 16:44, 9 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Ioannes McCarthy[fontem recensere]

I don't think there is any attestation anywhere that has John McCarthy calling himself or being called Ioannes. Is there a rule that we change names to their Latinate equivalents when possible? --Autophile 13:24, 9 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's our current policy, following the prevailing practice of neolatin authors. We however do not translate the last names unless a definite attested source exists for their name in particular.--Rafaelgarcia 13:37, 9 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Reference types[fontem recensere]

The English wiki article uses the Harvard style of references by using the Harvnb and Harvtxt templates. We don't have them in la:. Can I add them? --Autophile 15:20, 9 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

textbook[fontem recensere]

How would one say "textbook"? --Autophile 15:50, 9 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Depending on what kind of textbook you mean, ars (e.g., ars grammatica) or manuale ('handbook') or simply 'liber'. --Neander 16:08, 9 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
Books from which one learns the subject. ars seems appropriate. --Autophile 16:32, 9 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
At the University of Paris in the thirteenth century, the Discantus Positio Vulgaris (Anonymous IV), seemingly a sketch prepared for or taken down from lectures, may give us positio, but that's a medievalism, and it may not precisely mean 'textbook' anyway, so it's best avoided here, especially since we have several Classical possibilities to choose from. IacobusAmor 16:38, 9 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Artificialis intellegentia => Intellegentia artificialis[fontem recensere]

Sorry but I had to change the word order into the normal one, though I understand the joyful expediency of representing the English-born acronym "AI" as if it were an abbreviation of "Artificialis Intellegentia". True enough, Latin is a 'Free Word Order' language, but that doesn't mean that words may be ordered ad libitum. What free word order means is that (a.) unlike English, no obvious grammatical function is expressed by means of word order; (b.) sentential word order is free to be utilised for pragmatic purposes (like emphasis, contrast, focus, &c). By default, the Latin word order is "Noun + Adjective". In titles, the default order tends to be used. --Neander 16:04, 9 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

What I said about the acronym AI above holds for LED too. --Neander 16:25, 9 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Then you may want to be thorough about it and change MIT to MTI too! IacobusAmor 16:41, 9 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
Oh, nothing like that. MIT is ok as an acronym in Latin as well as in French or Spanish. And if "Massachusettense Institutum Technologiae" is the official Latin name for the Institute, fine. The preferable word order would be "Institutum Technologiae Massachusettense" (like "Institutum Technologiae Lundense"), though. /// BTW, did you ever look up "artificial" in Cassell's? :-) --Neander 18:54, 9 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
What do you think of SCDI? IacobusAmor 16:42, 9 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
UNO in Spanish is ONU. MIT is so hardly treated as a proper name that it's known even in the Spanish-speaking world as MIT with English-like spelling [e.maj'ti]. AI in Spanish is known as IA [iː'a] or [iːʔa], AIDS as SIDA, LEDs as LEDs (at least in the Spanish I speak) Cato censor 17:21, 9 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
Right. MIT, LED, etc are ok as well-established English-based acronyms, and I suggest they be treated as such, like they're treated in French, Italian and Spanish wiki. --Neander 18:54, 9 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
I agree the original word order did look odd to me too, but that's the way it was in some page that I can't find anymore, and I figured it must have been approved if it was there for so long... --Autophile 16:38, 9 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
I found "Lucem Emittens Diodus" in Electronica. Still can't recall where I saw "Artificialis Intelligentia"... --Autophile 17:03, 9 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm sure that was done more or less in a tongue-in-cheek'ish way, to show the malleability of Latin as a Free Word Order language. --Neander 18:54, 9 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
Looking for some examples in classical expressions in Latin, as far as I've found, most times the species goes first, and then the specification: res derelicta, ius solis, coeteris paribus, anno Domini, with the notable exception of exempli gratia. Cato censor 17:29, 9 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
Every now & then in Cassell's, one encounters the opposite order. (I should probably write these down when I find them!) An example is 'west': solis occasus, not occasus solis. Another is 'native language': patrius sermo, not sermo patrius. IacobusAmor 19:38, 9 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
Well, witness Cicero (de finibus 1.4): in quibus hoc primum est in quo admirer, cur in gravissimis rebus non delectet eos sermo patrius, cum idem fabellas Latinas ad verbum e Graecis expressas non inviti legant. --Neander 20:35, 9 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
That's not surprising, but one assumes that a dictionary will provide the more usually encountered form. IacobusAmor 23:51, 9 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
In this case, Cassell's fails to fulfil the assumption. Obviously Cassell's gives Lucretius's "patrii sermonis", because it's the earliest attestation. --Neander 00:47, 10 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

It seems that there is no criterium in this native latin examples. I suggest to use the species-specification order when there is no opposite attested, nor another good reason to change it (such as MIT's). Cato censor 20:03, 9 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

I've always thought that the default word order is: an adjective follows the noun it modifies, a genitive precedes the noun it modifies. Ergo, I would write Technologiae Institutum Massachusettense. I only break this rule in case of some complicated expressions, such as chains of genitives: A of B of C seems to be better rendered as A-nom B-gen C-gen than C-gen B-gen A-nom. Gabriel Svoboda 06:01, 10 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
For three-term arguments having the syntactical pattern of 'true greatness of mind', the model phrase uses hyperbaton like this: vera animi magnitudo (Bradley's Arnold, p. 19), with the adjective first and the possessive noun in the middle. Hence, Massachusettense Technologiae Institutum. But of course proper names (as of institutes and such) may be exceptions to the exception. IacobusAmor 14:34, 10 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

definire[fontem recensere]

De: "NB: definire takes normally only Nouns (not accusativus cum infinitivo constructions) as Objects." Yes, but I don't think that's what was happening: the original was illam hoc modo definit, which I take to mean 'defines it [scil. intellegentia artificialis] in this way', with illam being the thing defined and then the quoted definition following. Nevertheless, the new wording looks better! IacobusAmor 23:51, 9 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Notice that "illam hoc modo definit" wasn't the original wording. I was referring to the edition-historically older version (Emendatio ex 21:54, 9 Iulii 2009 ab Autophile): 'illam definit esse "scientiam et ingeniariam machinas intellegentes faciendi"', which was later corrected by the same author on the model given my me at the beginning of the article. --Neander 00:33, 10 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

...et ita agit, ut successus habeat quam maximos.[fontem recensere]

This seems to parse out to "...and therefore it acts, so that it could have as great a success as possible." There is a subtle distinction between this and the original en: wiki phrase, "...to make success as probable as possible." The sentence, as it reads now, implies that success is a sliding scale (which is how I make my own personal A.I. experiments work). The original wiki sentence, however, implies that success is a binary condition. Now, given that the sentence is talking specifically about intelligent agents, and not, say, evolutionary computing, I would be inclined to believe that an agent is given a goal at which it succeeds or fails, rather than has varying degrees of success.

All I'm saying is, maybe the original sentence, in better Latin, could be put back in the article? Perhaps just replace maximos with probabilissimem (or whatever the appropriate ending might be)? --Autophile 21:52, 10 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't drop the context of the preceding words: "...systema quod confinia sua sentit et ita agit, ut successus habeat quam maximos." ="....a system which senses its confines and acts so as to have successes, which are maximum." where I have word for word translated the latin idiom into english, so that you get the drift. However, note the idiom "quam maximos" here translates as simply "the most possible". So I think it would translate to: "....a system which senses its confines and acts so as to have the maximum successes."
Idioms are the most difficult thing to catch onto in any language. It's difficult to notice when you are unwittingly using an english idiom, unless you know a number of languages already to recognize it as an idiom; likewise it is impossible to guess a latin idiom unless you have seen it before in your reading.--Rafaelgarcia 22:04, 10 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

...qui anno 1956 terminum technicum "artificial intelligence" composuit[fontem recensere]

"...who, in 1956, constructed the technical limit, "artificial intelligence"??? I thought the original verbum was fine, as in L+S "Of an entire clause: a saying, expression, phrase, sentence." --Autophile 22:06, 10 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

terminus technicus = technical term. --Rafaelgarcia 22:21, 10 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for all the explanations you have been giving. Understanding the idioms and patterns of Latin will help me write more fluently (although it will be a long, long road). Thanks again! --Autophile 22:31, 10 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Haec subdisciplina studet notam potissimam hominum, intellegentiam ... tam exacte describere, ut machina simulari possit.[fontem recensere]

Perhaps here is where an idiom is going over my head. To me, this seems to say that "this subdiscipline seeks to describe [human intelligence] so exactly, that a machine can simulate it." This sentence was originally supposed to point out that the Dartmouth Conference (in 1956) is where the conjecture first arose (that human intelligence could be so exactly described, et cetera), informing the direction of the entire field, and not to describe the field (again, since this was already mentioned supra).

Oh, "... huius campi" referred to McCarthy &co. It was the starting of a new paragraph that made the referential context a bit opaque. Emendabo. --Neander 00:17, 11 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

... quae multa problemata difficillima informaticae scientiae persolvere ostentat[fontem recensere]

persolvere ostentat? I don't follow the meaning... shows to solve? I originally wanted "helps to solve." This is one of those idioms, isn't it. :(

No. I thought you meant "promises to solve". Please try to replace my "ostentat" by some verb of helping (there are more than one among which to make the choice).
I had adiuvare; I still think it is appropriate. If not, please correct it! --Autophile 00:12, 11 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
Correxi. The syntax of adiuvare isn't that simple. --Neander 00:35, 11 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
Could you explain this in more detail? adjuvit is in the perfect, which implies that AI helped, but no longer helps, technical industry. My choice, adjuvabat is probably no better, since it means AI was helping, kept helping... not exactly what I want to say, which is has been helping... What to do? --Autophile 00:48, 11 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
I think that Neander's rewrite reads better, but it seems to me from looking at L&S that adiuvo can take a variety of constructions, including the adiuvare+acc . Remember that the perfect "adiuvit" encompasses both "it/he/she helped" and "it/he/she has helped"--Rafaelgarcia 01:11, 11 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
Rafael, IMO, the basic pattern seems to be "adiuvare ( X[acc] ) in Y[abl]"; there may very well be other construction types, too. --Neander 01:34, 11 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
[temporal clash with Rafael] Well, the temporal and aspectual systems of English and Latin differ a lot. Methinks Latin perfect tense (adiuvit) together with in + Gerund construction (kind of future-deontic progressive) brings out (as close as possible) the English present perfect progressive that you're out for. If someone comes by a better solution, fine. --Neander 01:28, 11 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

informaticae scientiae: Didn't we already say that "computer science" = informatica? What is informatica scientia? --Autophile 22:40, 10 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

In my understanding, informatica is a substantivisation of scientia informatica, both meaning the same. If informatica is more palatable to you, feel free to delete my addition (scientia). --Neander 23:37, 10 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
Presumably scientia informatica = 'informatic knowledge'? IacobusAmor 23:57, 10 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Anglicum verbum: problem[fontem recensere]

Secundum Cassell's, 'problem' = quaestio. IacobusAmor 01:11, 11 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that is quite true. According to L&S: quaestio="an inquiry, investigation, a questioning, question, subject of inquiry, a disputed point"; problema="a question proposed for solution, a problem, enigma, riddle, puzzle (post-Aug.)". In particular, when taking about a math problem the translation is always problema, whereas when people talk about the question of life and death the translation is always quaestio.--Rafaelgarcia 01:25, 11 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's true, quite true, and wholly true, that the only word that Cassell's recommends that we should use for 'problem' is quaestio when our aim is to convert "English prose of various styles and periods into Latin prose of a 'classical' type" (p. ix). IacobusAmor 02:16, 11 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
I agree; I never meant to dipute that Cassell recommends that. And it seems that L&S agree that problema is post-Augustan, so that there is no record of Casesar or Cicero etc. ever using problema.--Rafaelgarcia 02:30, 11 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
For the purposes of the present article, quaestio is undoubtably the right word anyway.--Rafaelgarcia 02:31, 11 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Anglicum verbum: artificial[fontem recensere]

Given the great authority of Cassell's, Engl. artificial = Latin artificiosus. Conclusion? --Neander 03:27, 11 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

But if you read L&S, this is a very secondary sense, the primary sense and force of "artificiosus" is "full of art", and when one speaks of a "homo artificiosus" one means "a man accomplished in art" or "a skillful artist"; only when when applies the adjective to a inanimate or abstract object does the meaning "artificial" summoned indirectly. Artificialis is one case, IMO where a neolatin term is absolutely necessary to describe a modern concept properly.--Rafaelgarcia 06:29, 11 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
The appropriate conclusion is that Cassell's got it right! If not, would somebody explain the point more fully? The first & basic definition of artificial in the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary is "humanly contrived[,] often on a natural model : MAN-MADE." The exhibition put on by the Bishop Museum in Honolulu in 1978 to celebrate the bicentennial of the European discovery of Hawai'i was titled Artificial Curiosities. (It had the subtitle An Exposition of Native Manufactures Collected on the Three Pacific Voyages of Captain James Cook, R.N.) The phrase artificial curiosities is the term that Captain Cook and others popularized to denote the human-made (as opposed to the nature-made) objects that they collected. This contrast seems to be what Cicero had in mind by artificiosus here: ea genera divinandi non naturalia, sed artificiosa dicuntur (quoted in Cassell's). A slightly different sense of English artificial (a sense approaching those of 'affected, contrived, pretended') is accommodated by Latin fictus and simulatus. ¶ For reference: the definition of artificial in Ainsworth's dictionary is "Artificiosus; arte elaboratus, concinnus, affabre factus." IacobusAmor 11:11, 11 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Locutiones Anglicorum: Machine learning; machine translation[fontem recensere]

In these phrases, I'm not sure the genitive case for machine is appropriate. It might be Genitive of Description, but I'm thinking that these phrases really mean by machine, and not of machine. So would they be eruditio machinae; translatio machinae or machina eruditio; machina translatio? --Autophile 17:56, 22 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I take back the part about machine learning: this is a machine's learning, not learning by machine. But the question of machine translation remains. --Autophile 18:04, 22 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
Latin makes a lot of distinctions that english does not: by machine translation, do you mean translation by machine, as in mechanical translation? Then it would be "translatio mechanica". since machina is a noun not an adjective, putting machina and translatio together gives you "Machine, the translation" not "machine translation".--Rafaelgarcia 18:44, 22 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Movie titles, book titles[fontem recensere]

Neander changed the book title lemma "Cum Compressis Manibus" back to the English "With Folded Hands," commenting that "the lemma must remain English, however, because the novel hasn't been translated into Latin." Is there a different rule for books than for video? Vide Bella Stellaria, Iter Stellare, and a bazillion more Latinized lemmas in Categoria:Televisio. Has Asimov's Foundation been translated into Latin? I'm not complaining, I'm just pointing out that my original reason for translating the titles is that every title seems to be translated. --Autophile 18:22, 22 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Not every title! Vide Uncle Tom's Cabin. IacobusAmor 18:33, 22 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
Please, see the category Mythistoriae. I don't know the history of Vicipaedia, but it's my personal impression that in those early years there was a tendency to translate everything into Latin, even book titles in the Bibliography sections, &c. It seems to me that there are two coexisting systems here, the other, older one, represented by the lemma "De opere fundato", which methinks should be Foundation. WRT movies, see the discussion on Citizen Kane. --Neander 19:39, 22 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
So, for "hysterical raisins". Got it, thanks! --Autophile 19:55, 22 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
We stopped trying to translate the titles at Vicipaedia because some titles just don't translate right and also people would end up moving pages over and over again to new names. Arguments over page names ended up wasting a lot of time. At least we can all agree as to the foreign name.--Rafaelgarcia 20:03, 22 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
There was an ambiguity in the rules for Latinizing names for Vicipedia for a while — there was a rule literally stating that the name of any non-literary work should be translated, which led to a lot of movie titles being translated, as movies aren't quite literary works. The rule was rewritten about a year ago to cover the original intent, that a work without linguistic content at all outside of the title should be translated, but a lot of the movie titles still haven't been moved back. —Mucius Tever 04:15, 24 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
But I see that discussion was just linked above. Eheh! —Mucius Tever 04:16, 24 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
I take the blame for not having moved the "Foundation" series. I moved to their original "foreign" titles all the other books I could find, and all the movies I could find, only excepting those for which a Latin title has already been published. I haven't touched television, though. Television bores me, so I left others to think about that! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:10, 24 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Iacobo Lighthill[fontem recensere]

Since Sir Lighthill was a Fellow of the Royal Society, would the first mention of his name include the honorific Sir? See How should I address someone with a British title? So would this be Domino Iacobo Lighthill instead? --Autophile 02:51, 26 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

"Sir Lighthill" is an error of English idiom: he's rightly "Sir Jacob." (The "sir" goes with the forename, not the surname.) The Latin form is Iacobus Lighthill, Eques. IacobusAmor 03:53, 26 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
In fact, I don't have an answer to this. To me, "Sir X" or "Sanctus Y" mean next to nothing. Please add the honorific you like, if you find it appropriate. BTW, Paul McCartney is also a "Sir", but this ornament seems to be lacking in the article on Beatles. --Neander 11:54, 26 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
... and in the brand-new article on Paulus McCartney. :-) --Neander 11:59, 26 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
As a not-too-British Briton, I think the fewer such honorifics we use the better. They don't help: in this case readers are simply going to ask "what does his horsemanship have to do with it?" They are usually added to a name long after anything notable has been done (I don't know about Lighthill's case) and therefore, as with Paul Macartney, it would be anachronistic to use them in talking about someone's achievements. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:52, 26 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
Note, however, that his article in :en: begins: "Sir James Paul McCartney, MBE (born 18 June 1942), formerly of The Beatles and Wings, is the most successful musician and composer in the history of popular music." IacobusAmor 14:07, 26 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
Yes. It's stupid and misleading (I think). James Paul McCartney (no sir, no MBE) was the fellow born on 18 June 1942. Who's Who does this kind of thing, because it serves a particular purpose. Encyclopedias generally don't. Our rule-of-thumb on Vicipaedia used to be to use people's original names. I personally would vary it in favour of using their best known names (so preferring "Paul McCartney" and "Elizabeth II") but I wouldn't, in general, vary it in favour of later-added titles of sanctity or nobility. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:22, 27 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Prudentia artis[fontem recensere]

Quia "intellegentia artificialis" ut lingua Latina classica communis non sonat, dicam "prudentia artis". Praeterea, fons ad verbum Latinum huic commentationi difficile invenire sit. Quid censetis? -- Donatello (disputatio) 19:07, 2 Septembris 2015 (UTC).

I'll reply in English (si Latine legere vultis, postulate, amici!) I think "intellegentia" is OK, and "prudentia" is not an improvement. My real problem is with "artis". Deconstructing the English term, we are talking about "intelligence created/achieved by artificial means". The Latin genitive does not suit the meaning "by/created by/achieved by". The nearest phrase that would get across some similar sense would use the ablative, I think, "intellegentia arte facta". (I'm not proposing this, just suggesting that this would be a closer approach.) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:17, 3 Septembris 2015 (UTC)

Pars ablata[fontem recensere]

Ultimam paginae partem propter malam Latinitatem removi. Verba ablata si quis corrigere et restituere volet, huc transtuli. Lesgles (disputatio) 18:16, 7 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)

Descriptio scientiae[fontem recensere]

Descriptio scientiae[1] et ars scientiae[2] est investigationi A.I gravissimus. Problemata numerosa a machinae persolvi scientia magna de mundo requirunt. Res ab A.I. descriptare requirens pertinent ad res corporeas, qualitates, categorias et adfinitates inter res;[3] status, eventus, circumstantias et tempus;[4] causas consequentesque;[5] scientiam de scientia (id quod scit de quo alii sciunt);[6] et dominia alia numerosa tenuatim investigum. Descriptio tota de "eo quod est" ontologiam (terminologiam ex philosophia mutuaticus) vocant, cuius maxime generalis est ontologia supera.

Hi sunt nonnulla problemata difficilima in descriptione scientiae:

Ratiocinatio residens et problema de necessitudes
Multa scientiae hominum "sumptionibus prudentibus" consistit. Per exemplum, si in collocutione avem mentionem habet, plerumque de animale cantante, volante, et tam amplum quam pugnus meminerunt. Nullus illorum est verus avibus omnibus. Ioannes McCarthy illud problema anno 1969[7] ut problema de necessitudes cognovit: quaeque norma prudentis ab investigatore proponit, plerumque est exceptiones numerosae plerae. Paene nullus est aut verus aut falsus in modo logica abstracta requirens. Investigatio A.I. solutiones numeras illius problematis exploraverunt.[8]
Latitudo scientiae vulgaris
Numerus rerum singularum ab homine mediocri scitus est ingens. Molimenta enthecam totam scientiae vulgaris molire attentantes (e.g. Cyc) quantitates ingentes artis ontologicae laboriosae requirunt -- illae enthecae manus moliendus sunt, notione rerum plectilis singulis.[9] Unum destinatum maius est computatrum numerum rerum sufficientem comprehens ut fontibus (e.g. Interrete) legente resciscat etiam ontologiae propriae suae addat.
Forma subsymbolica nonnullae scientiae vulgaris
Plurima scientiae hominum ut res vel propositiones enuntiari non possunt. Per exemplum, doctus scaccorum quandam positiones scaccorum aversatur quia "periculosus nimis sentit";[10] existimator artis sculpturatus ad sculpturam aspicit, protinus est imitatum sciens.[11] Illi sunt cogitationes intuitivae et proclivitates in cerebro inscii subsymboliciique descripti.[12] Illa scientia ad scientiam symbolicam consciamque admonent et adiuvant, et ad eandem circumiacentia praevident. Ut problemate cognatum ratiocinatione subsymbolicum, expectatio est de A.I. situata vel intellegentia computatria modos illam scientiam describentem praevidet.[12]

Praedispositio[fontem recensere]

Actoribus intellegentiis calces definiendi et eaedem pervincendi sunt.[13] Illis res futuri praedicendi (illis status mundi describendi et mutationes illius status propter actiones sese praedicendi) et actio valorem quam maxime augens optandi sunt.[14]

In nonnullis problematibus de praedispositione, actor idem esse res solus in mundum agens praesumit, ita consequentes actiones sui sunt clara.[15] At si illa adsumptio est falsa, illi actori status mundi cum praedictionibus sese aequipere nonnumquam confirmandus et praedispositiones ut necesse mutandus est; actori sub incerta ratiocinandus est.[16]

Praedispositio actoris multorum actores multis cooperantibus contendentibusque calcem quendam pervincit. Algorithmi evolutionum et intellegentia gregis illa tractatione emergente utitur.[17]

Eruditio[fontem recensere]

Eruditio machinae ab initio investigationem A.I. complexit.[18] Eruditio ingubernationis est habilitas regulas reperientis in fluvio datorum. Eruditio gubernationis et ad partitionem (decernens quid categoriam quisquam adpertinet, post videntem exempla rerum ex categoriis nonnullis) et ad regressionem (decernens functionem continuam, post videntem exempla inituum exituumque, exitus ex initibus ingenerans) pertinet. In eruditione corroborationis,[19] actor pro responso bono remuneratur, et pro responso malo punitur. Illos algorithmos theoria optationis in conceptis ut utilitas edisserere potest. Disserens mathematicus algorithmorum eruditionis machinae et efficacia eorum est subcampus informaticae theoricae qui theoriam eruditionis computationis vocant.

Procedens linguae naturalis[fontem recensere]

Procedens linguae naturalis[20] machinae linguas quae ab hominibus dicuntur legere intellegereque admittit. Multi investigatores systema satis potentem procedentis linguae naturalis scientiam pro sese lectiones ibi in Interrete legente acquirere expectant. Nonnullus usus simplices procedentis linguae naturalis ad reparantem informationis (i.e. effodientem lectionum) et translationem mechanica pertinent.[21]

Motio et tractatio[fontem recensere]

Asimo instrumentis sensoriis algorithmesque intellegentum impedimenta fugit scalarumque navigat.

Campus roboticae[22] ad A.I. est adfinis. Roboti intellegentiam requirunt ut partes ut tractationem[23] navigationemque agerent. Subproblemata sunt locatio (sciens ubi eras), faciens tabulae loci (erudiens quid eras apud te), et motionem praedispositio (comperiens quo modo ibidem ibas).[24]

Sentio[fontem recensere]

Sentio mechanica[25] est habilitas initus ex machinationibus sentientibus utentis (e.g. machinationes videntes, machinationes audientes, "sonar", et al.) ut statum mundi colligeret. Visio mechanica[26] est habilitas initus visus intellegentis. Nonnulli subproblemata ad loquelam agnoscentem,[27] facium agnoscentem, et rem agnoscentem[28] pertinet.

Intelligentia socialis[fontem recensere]

Kismet est robotus cum habilitates socialum primitivae.

Motiones animi et habilitas socialis in duam modos pro actoribus intellegentiis agunt:[29]

  • Actor actiones aliarum causas eos et status motionum animorum eos intellegente praedicendus est. Ille ad partes theoriae ludorum, theoriam optationis, habilitatem intellegantis motiones animorum hominum, et habilitatem detegentis motiones animorum pertinet.
  • Pro interactio bona inter homines machinaeque, machina intellegentia motiones animi ostendendus est. Certe illa machina et benignam et sensilem ad homines cum ea interagentes adparendus. Optume, illa machina motiones animi hominis habeat.

Habilitas generabilis[fontem recensere]

Topio est robotum ping-pong ludens, a TOSY aedificatus est.

Hic subcampus A.I. habilitatem generabilis theoria (philosophia psychologiaque) et arte (aedificante systemas ingenerantia emissiones quae generabilis esse agnoscuntur) investigat.

Intellegentia generalis[fontem recensere]

Plurimus investigatori investigationes eos ad machinam cum intellegentia generalis (sive A.I. forte) conducturus esse exspectant; illa machina omnes habilitates supra colligeret, habilitates homines in plurima vel omne excedens.[30] Nonnullus necessitatem esse notas anthropomorphicas ut conscientiam artificialem vel cerebrum artificialem creditant.[31]

Multa problematum supra totam A.I. esse creditantur: si unam problematem persolvenda est, omna problemates persolvendas sunt. Per exemplum, translatio mechanica machinam argumentum auctorem intellegere (i.e. ratiocinari), quo loquuntur scire (i.e. scientia habere), et intentionem auctorem bene transferare (i.e. intellegentiam socialem habere) requirit. Ita, translatio mechanica totam A.I. creditantur: illa pars A.I. fortem requirere potest ut illa pars ut bene quam homine ageretur.[32]

Stratagemata ad A.I.[fontem recensere]

Theoria vel paradigma tota rata investigationes A.I. ducens non est. Investigatori de numero problematum discordant.[33] Hi sunt nonnullus quaestiones diuturnae etiamnunc non responsi sunt: Utrum A.I. psychologiam vel neurologiam studente cerebrum naturale simulet? an biologia hominum est tam super investigationum A.I. quam biologia avium super artem aëronauticam?[34] Utrum actiones intellegentiae principiis simplicibus elegantibusque (ut logica vel valorem increscente) describi possunt? an illis numerum magnum problematum extrana persolvere requirunt?[35] Utrum intellegentia symbolis superis (ut verbis vel conceptis) simulari potest? an illa descriptionem subsymbolicam requirit?[36]

Cybernetica et cerebri simulans[fontem recensere]

Cerebrum hominis investigatores A.I. inspirant, quamquam de quam apte idem simularetur consensus non est.

Per annos 1940 et 1950, nonnulli investigatores cognationes inter neurologiam, theoriam informationis et cyberneticam exploravit. Nonnullus machinas retibus electronicis exhibentes intellegentiam primitivam aedificavit, ut testudines de W. Gray Walter et Johns Hopkins Beast. Multus ex illibus investigatoribus in Societatem Teleologica apud Universitas Princeton, et in Societatem Ratio apud Angliam congressi sunt.[37] Ad annos 1960, illa stratagema partim derelicta est, quamquam partes in annos 1980 restituti sunt.

A.I. symbolica ex instituto[fontem recensere]

Cum accessu ad computatrum digitale medio annorum 1950, investigatores notionem intellegentiam hominis ad tractationem symbolorum redigi sit explorare inceperunt. Hic investigatio apud tria institutiones complecta est: CMU, Universitatem Stanfordiensis, et MIT. Omnes stilum proprium investigationis explicaverunt. Ioannes Haugeland hos aditus ad A.I. "A.I. patria bona" (Anglice: "good old-fashioned A.I."), sive GOFAI (acronymum Anglicum), nominavit.[38]

Cognitionem simulans
Herbertus Simon oeconomus et Alanus Newell habilitates hominum problematis persolventis studuerunt illasque mathematice describere attemptaverunt. Labores sui campum A.I. ac scientiam cognitionis, investigationem operationis, et scientiam administrationis instituerunt. Manus suus investigationum experimenta psychologicas ut similitudinem inter problemata persolventem hominum programmasque quae scribebant (e.g. "General Problem Solver" -- Anglice; Latine "Persolvator Problematum Generalum" -- suas) demonstrarent. Hic aditus, apud CMU complectentem, in aedificio "Soar" medio annorum 1980 tandem evenerit.[39][40]
A.I. logica
Ioannes McCarthy, a Newell Simonque dissentiens, machinas ratiocinationem hominis simulantes non require, autem essentiam ratiocinationis logicae persolventisque problematum exquirere neglegentem utrum homines algorithmos similes uti debere, credidit.[34] Laboratorium suum apud Universitatem Stanfordiensis, SAIL, logicum formale usa sunt ut multa problemata, ut descriptionem scientiae, praedispositionem, et eruditionem, persolverent.[41] Logicum apud Universitatem Edinburgensis alibique in Europam adsumpta est, cedens ad genesem linguae computatralis Prolog scientiamque programmantis logica.[42]
A.I. symbolica "inculta"
Investigatores apud MIT (ut Marvin Minksy et Seymour Papert)[43] problemata difficilia in visionem procedentemque linguae naturalis persolventia solutiones proprias tumultuariasque (ad-hoc vocant) requirere reppererunt; illi doctrinam facilis generalisque (ut logicam) omnia spectus intellegentiae amplectens non esse putant. Rogerus Schank aditus "anti-logicas" illorum "scruffy" (Anglice; Latine: "incultam") (in oppositionem cum aditus "neat" (Anglice; Latine: "culta") apud CMU et Universitatem Stanfordiensis) nominavit.[35] Enthecae scientiae vulgaris (ut Cyc de Duglassio Lenat) sunt exempla intellegentiae artificialis incultae, quia manu concepte intricato singulare moliendae sunt.[44]
A.I. ex scientia
Cum computatria cum memoria magna circa annum 1970 praebuerunt, investigatores ab omnibus tres consuetudinibus scientiam in programmas A.I. moliri inceperint.[45] Hic "novae res scientiae" systemas expertas (ab Eduardus Feigenbaum inceptus est), quae erat prima forma vere victoriosa A.I., molientes impetravit.[46] Novae res scientae multam programmam A.I. faciles copiam ingentem scientiae requirere apprehenso item impetratus est.
  1. Knowledge representation:
    • ACM 1998, I.2.4,
    • Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 320-363,
    • Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 23-46, 69-81, 169-196, 235-277, 281-298, 319-345,
    • Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 227-243,
    • Nilsson 1998, chpt. 18
  2. Knowledge engineering:
    • Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 260-266,
    • Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 199-233,
    • Nilsson 1998, chpt. ~17.1-17.4
  3. Representing categories and relations: Semantic networks, description logics, inheritance (including frames and scripts):
    • Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 349-354,
    • Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 174-177,
    • Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 248-258,
    • Nilsson 1998, chpt. 18.3
  4. Representing events and time:Situation calculus, event calculus, fluent calculus (including solving the frame problem):
    • Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 328-341,
    • Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 281-298,
    • Nilsson 1998, chpt. 18.2
  5. Causal calculus:
    • Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 335-337
  6. Representing knowledge about knowledge: Belief calculus, modal logics:
    • Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 341-344,
    • Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 275-277
  7. McCarthy & Hayes 1969. While McCarthy was primarily concerned with issues in the logical representation of actions, Russell & Norvig 2003 apply the term to the more general issue of default reasoning in the vast network of assumptions underlying all our commonsense knowledge.
  8. Default reasoning and default logic, non-monotonic logics, circumscription, closed world assumption, abduction (Poole et al. places abduction under "default reasoning". Luger et al. places this under "uncertain reasoning"):
    • Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 354-360,
    • Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 248-256, 323-335,
    • Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 335-363,
    • Nilsson 1998, ~18.3.3
  9. Breadth of commonsense knowledge:
    • Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 21,
    • Crevier 1993, pp. 113-114,
    • Moravec 1988, p. 13,
    • Lenat & Guha 1989 (Introduction)
  10. Dreyfus & Dreyfus 1986
  11. Gladwell 2005
  12. 12.0 12.1 Expert knowledge as embodied intuition:
    • Dreyfus & Dreyfus 1986 (Hubert Dreyfus is a philosopher and critic of AI who was among the first to argue that most useful human knowledge was encoded sub-symbolically.)
    • Gladwell 2005 (Gladwell's Blink is a popular introduction to sub-symbolic reasoning and knowledge.)
    • Hawkins 2005 (Hawkins argues that sub-symbolic knowledge should be the primary focus of AI research.)
  13. Planning:
    • ACM 1998, ~I.2.8,
    • Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 375-459,
    • Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 281-316,
    • Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 314-329,
    • Nilsson 1998, chpt. 10.1-2, 22
  14. Information value theory:
    • Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 600-604
  15. Classical planning:
    • Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 375-430,
    • Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 281-315,
    • Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 314-329,
    • Nilsson 1998, chpt. 10.1-2, 22
  16. Planning and acting in non-deterministic domains: conditional planning, execution monitoring, replanning and continuous planning:
    • Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 430-449
  17. Multi-agent planning and emergent behavior:
    • Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 449-455
  18. Alan Turing discussed the centrality of learning as early as 1950, in his classic paper Computing Machinery and Intelligence. (Turing 1950)
  19. Reinforcement learning:
    • Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 763-788
    • Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 442-449
  20. Natural language processing:
    • ACM 1998, I.2.7
    • Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 790-831
    • Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 91-104
    • Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 591-632
  21. Applications of natural language processing, including information retrieval (i.e. text mining) and machine translation:
    • Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 840-857,
    • Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 623-630
  22. Robotics:
    • ACM 1998, I.2.9,
    • Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 901-942,
    • Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 443-460
  23. Moving and configuration space:
    • Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 916-932
  24. Robotic mapping (localization, etc):
    • Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 908-915
  25. Machine perception:
    • Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 537-581, 863-898
    • Nilsson 1998, ~chpt. 6
  26. Computer vision:
    • ACM 1998, I.2.10
    • Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 863-898
    • Nilsson 1998, chpt. 6
  27. Speech recognition:
    • ACM 1998, ~I.2.7
    • Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 568-578
  28. Object recognition:
    • Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 885-892
  29. Emotion and affective computing:
    • Minsky 2007
    • Picard 1997
  30. Lapsus in citando: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named GI
  31. Gerald Edelman, Igor Aleksander and others have both argued that artificial consciousness is required for strong AI. CITATION IN PROGRESS Ray Kurzweil, Jeff Hawkins and others have argued that strong AI requires a simulation of the operation of the human brain. CITATION IN PROGRESS
  32. AI complete: Shapiro 1992, p. 9
  33. Nils Nilsson writes: "Simply put, there is wide disagreement in the field about what AI is all about." (Nilsson 1983, p. 10)
  34. 34.0 34.1 Biological intelligence vs. intelligence in general:
    • Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 2-3, who make the analogy with aeronautical engineering.
    • McCorduck 2004, pp. 100-101, who writes that there are "two major branches of artifical intelligence: one aimed at producing intelligent behavior regardless of how it was accomplioshed, and the other aimed at modeling intelligent processes found in nature, particularly human ones."
    • Kolata 1982, a paper in Science, which describes McCathy's indifference to biological models. Kolata quotes McCarthy as writing: "This is AI, so we don't care if it's psychologically real"[1]. McCarthy recently reiterated his position at the AI@50 conference where he said "Artificial intelligence is not, by definition, simulation of human intelligence" (Maker 2006).
  35. 35.0 35.1 Neats vs. scruffies:
    • McCorduck 2004, pp. 421-424, 486-489
    • Crevier 1993, pp. 168
    • Nilsson 1983, pp. 10-11
  36. Symbolic vs. sub-symbolic AI:
    • Nilsson (1998, p. 7), who uses the term "sub-symbolic".
  37. Lapsus in citando: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named CYBER
  38. Haugeland 1985, pp. 112-117
  39. Cognitive simulation, Newell and Simon, AI at CMU (then called Carnegie Tech):
    • McCorduck 2004, pp. 139-179, 245-250, 322-323 (EPAM)
    • Crevier 2004, pp. 145-149
  40. Soar (history):
    • McCorduck 2004, pp. 450-451
    • Crevier 1993, pp. 258-263
  41. McCarthy and AI research at SAIL and SRI:
    • McCorduck 2004, pp. 251-259
    • Crevier 1993, pp. Check
  42. AI research at Edinburgh and in France, birth of Prolog:
    • Crevier 1993, pp. 193-196
    • Howe 1994
  43. AI at MIT under Marvin Minsky in the 1960s :
    • McCorduck 2004, pp. 259-305
    • Crevier 1993, pp. 83-102, 163-176
    • Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 19
  44. Cyc:
    • McCorduck 2004, p. 489, who calls it "a determinedly scruffy enterprise"
    • Crevier 1993, pp. 239−243
    • Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 363−365
    • Lenat & Guha 1989
  45. Knowledge revolution:
    • McCorduck 2004, pp. 266-276, 298-300, 314, 421
    • Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 22-23
  46. Lapsus in citando: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named EXPERT