Talk:Artificial intelligence/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Artificial intelligence. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Some definitions of AI

Since we still seem to need a consensus on how to define AI I thought it would be worthwhile to just post a few from some of the classic text books:

"Artificial Intelligence is the study of ideas that enable computers to be intelligent" from Artificial Intelligence by Patrick Wilson p.1.
"The field of artificial intelligence, or AI, attempts to understand intelligent entities. Thus, one reason to study it is to learn more about ourselves. But unlike philosophy and psychology, which are also concerned with intelligence, AI strives to build intelligent entities as well as understand them. Another reason to study AI is that these constructed intelligent entities are interesting and useful in their own right" Russel and Norvig AI A Modern Approach p. 3
"Artificial Intelligence is the part of computer science concerned with designing intelligent computer systems, that is systems we associate with intelligence in human behavior: understanding language, learning, reasoning..." AI Handbook Barr and Feigenbaum https://archive.org/stream/handbookofartific01barr#page/n19/mode/2up

I like the Barr and Feigenbaum definition the best. Note two things though, EVERYONE describes it as "the study of" not as the intelligence itself, that is in contrast with the definition here and two NONE of them say anything about being contstrained by the way humans solve problems. Again, I like the Feigenbaum one best because it makes the valid point which is similar to what is there now but importantly different, making computers do things that are thought of as human intelligence IS AI but not being constrained by the WAY humans do those things. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

These are definitions of the academic field of AI research, i.e. "the study of". I am fine with restricted the definition to only describe the academic field, if everyone thinks that's best. Some years ago, we had something like this "Artificial intelligence is a branch of computer science which studies intelligent machines and software," i.e., the definition was strictly about the academic field.

I think that there are actually two other uses of the term outside of the academic AI, but we can choose to ignore this if we want, because the article is definitely about academic AI, and not about science fiction or other popular sources. The other two uses are: (2) the intelligence of machines or software (3) an intelligent machine or program (this usage is common in gaming and science fiction). The article for the last several years has started with (2) and ignored (3).

Feel free to try to fix this. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 02:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

When you say "the article is about academic AI" that's partly true but AI is one of those concepts like distributed computing that has both a strong academic and a strong industry flavor. My background is in both btw, I've worked in the AI group of a Major Consulting firm as well as doing research for DARPA and USAF. And where I'm coming from with some of my comments is more from the industry side. It's my industry experience that makes me say that the whole "is it just about human intelligence" is just a no brainer. People who aren't academics NEVER think like that in my experience, they want to build smart systems that solve hard problems and they will use any technique that works best. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure -- it's about mainstream academic and industrial AI, as opposed to pop-science, science fiction and any of those thousands of "pet theories" and "alternative forms" of AI.

As I said before, feel free to rewrite the first couple of sentences any way that makes sense to you; it seems like you know what you're talking about. I'd like to keep the intelligent agent/rational agent definition and McCarthy's quote. The simple definition for the lay reader can go any way you think is best. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The definition we quote in the intro is from Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, p. 1. I like it because it's from a popular textbook, it's concise, to the point, does not equivocate, does not raise any unnecessary complications and finds a way to define AI that does not require also defining human intelligence, sidestepping all possible philosophical and technical objections. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 02:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

AI definition: What is "Strong" vs. "Weak" AI and where is it referenced?

The current definition of AI contrasts "strong" vs "weak" AI. I'm not familiar with that distinction. Who makes it and where is it referenced. Also, as a meta-point I've noticed there seems to be a lot of deference to the Russel and Norvig book on AI. That is only one book and neither guy has the standing of people who have also written general AI books such as Patrick Wilson, Feigenbaum's AI handbook, and other. Here is Wilson's definition: "Artificial Intelligence is the study of ideas that enable computers to be intelligent" from Artificial Intelligence by Patrick Wilson p.1. I think such a simple definition is what we should use to start the article --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I just saw that Russel and Norvig have a definition of strong vs. weak AI (section 1.5 p29). Their definition is strong AI think that machines can be conscious weak AI thinks they can't. That is a very different definition than is what is currently in the intro text. First of all I think the whole distinction is unimportant anyway. It matters to people for whom AI is a purely academic discipline but the people who actually do AI, who build expert systems, ontologies, etc. and use them in the real world don't care one way or the other. I think that part of the intro definitely needs to be changed. I don't think the strong vs. weak is important enough to be mentioned so early on but if it is it should at least be consistent with the definition of R&N --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree and have removed this sentence once again. (It may be re-added by FelixRosch shortly, assuming things continue to happen as they have been happening these last few weeks.)

I agree that (1) undefined terms such as strong AI or weak AI should not be in second sentence because they have not yet been defined for the reader. Defining them correctly would take too much space to put in the lede, thus these terms can't be in the lede. (2) The distinction between different kinds of AI is not important at this point. The highest priority is the widely-accepted academic definition of AI (sentence 3) and the definition intended by the man who coined the term (sentence 4). These are much higher priorities. (3) The term "strong AI" only appears in the article at two points in the article (once as a synonym for artificial general intelligence, and once as the philosophical position identified by John Searle as the strong AI thesis). Thus, given all the material we have to cover in this article, this a relatively unimportant topic, and does not belong in the lede because it summarizes such a small fraction of the material in the article. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 02:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, the sentence with strong AI/weak AI has been re-added by Felix Rosch. Feel free to remove it if you agree with me that the sentence doesn't work. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

What Needs Discussing?

There seems to have been too much reverting in the past few days. Let's identify the issues. There is disagreement as to whether to include a paragraph on "deep learning". There is disagreement on whether to mention "strong AI" and "weak AI". I think that strong and weak should be mentioned in the article, but not in the lede, but that is only my opinion. What other disagreements are there, besides the "human-like" question that is being decided by RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is a summary of the current editorial issues.

1) An ongoing dispute about the lede, which has lasted several week. FelixRosch's latest contribution to the lede is this phrase: "which generally studies the goal of emulating human-like intelligence, though other variations of AI such as strong-AI and weak-AI are also studied." This phrase had been added and removed several times. I have three objections to this phrase:

"Human-like" intelligence: (Covered by the RfC above) There is an ongoing dispute that the term "human-like intelligence" should not be used to define AI.
Strong AI, weak AI: (Covered by the discussion started by MadScientist above) MadScientist and I both have objections to introducing these terms in the second sentence of the article.
The writing: And finally, in my opinion it is an awkward sentence, which reads poorly.

2) "Deep learning": (Covered by the discussion started by MadScientist above). The section added by FelixRosch about "Deep learning" is WP:UNDUE weight, in my opinion and MadScientist's. This section is copied and pasted from the article deep learning, and (I would argue) that is where it belongs. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 03:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Deep Learning does seem like it now has undue weight. ... But, without that section it seems like AI techniques are almost entirely symbolic and strictly logical, which is also wrong. Is there a way to summarize Deep learning, traditional neural networks, and other more black-boxy techniques? APL (talk) 13:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I would argue we have a consensus that Deep Learning has undue weight. As for the other issues: I also agree things like connectionist frameworks: Minsky, Pappert, Arbib, Churchland (those are the authors off the top of my head that I know, I don't know that part of the field though) needs more emphasis HOWEVER, I would strongly urge we table that. Let's sort out Deep Learning and the lede first and then move on to other issues. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@APL: I don't agree with your reading of the "Approaches" sectio. Cybernetics (1930-1950s) and symbolic/logical/knowledgebased "GOFAI" (1960s-1980s) are presented as failed approaches that have been mostly superseded by newer approaches. Deep learning is one example of what the article calls statistical AI and sub-symbolic AI, as are all modern neural network methods.

As I said, I think that deep learning belongs in the section under Tools called Neural networks. It seem to me that deep learning (as described in Wikipedia) is one new neural network technique among the many that have been developed in the last decade. The neural network section mentions Jeff Hawkins' Hierarchical Temporal Memory approach to neural networks; it could also mention Hinton's deep learning if everyone thinks that's important. However, I have to say, I think it's possible to come up with at least dozen more examples of interesting new approaches to neural networks from the last decade, and we don't have room to mention them all. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 03:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@APL & @MadScientist -- do you have any objection to moving your posts in to the section #Deep learning above? ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 00:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

RFC

In further looking at the RFC, it is still non-neutral and has everyone confused. I would like to strike the RFC, and wait about 24 hours, and then create a new RFC with nothing but a question as to the lede sentence, and any other questions that are well-defined. Arguments in favor of a position can then be included as discussion. Unless anyone strongly objects, I will strike the RFC. (If anyone does object, we have to have an RFC on whether to strike the RFC. -:) ). Robert McClenon (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

My 2 cents is don't even bother making it an RFC. You end up getting a bunch of people who have little or no actual editing experience pontificating and going off on tangents. Just stick to a regular discussion in the talk section and try to keep it as focused as possible on specific editing questions. I think an RFC is overkill and that it slows down a real consensus and moving forward with actual editing which should be the goal. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Robert: I realize this is a lot to ask, but do you think you could start the RFC and help us figure out how to end this? As I've said before, I don't really understand why this dispute is continuing and why the normal standards of evidence are being ignored. I just want it to stop. How do we muster the necessary support to end this all-fronts total edit war? ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess I should spell this out a little more directly -- I'm trying to assume good faith here. What, exactly, does it take in order to allow us to remove the term "human-like" from the lede? We have a huge body of evidence that this is the right thing to do, absolutely no coherent evidence that it is wrong thing to do, a consensus of several editors here (including yourself) who agree that the term does not belong in the lede. However, every time I remove it from the lede, it gets restored by FelixRosche, thus I find myself in an edit war. I don't know what to do at this point.

I'm not sure exactly what's wrong with the RFC -- the question is clear, general and simple and the corresponding editorial choices are obvious. Is the problem that there is only one side presented? It seems to me that should be reason to end the issue as settled -- if FelixRosche doesn't care to make an argument, then let's be done with it. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 03:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

One last thought: editors should be aware that FelixRosche has added the term "human-like" back into the article many times, in many different forms, with many different edits. The RFC has to settle the issue of "human-like" in general, so that he doesn't just change the sentence again. (And I apologize if this seems to be bad faith; it's not -- I'm just betting the percentages here: "the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior"). ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 04:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I've struck "human-like" from the lede again. We need an RFC if User:FelixRosch actually is ready to argue that "human-like" should be somewhere in the lede. If he is willing to agree that it doesn't need to be in the lede, then we can leave it out. If he really wants it in, then we need some sort of resolution process to keep it out. I have argued in favor of RFC rather than DRN. Is he willing to leave human-like out of the lede, or does he really think it belongs, in which case we need an RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I am willing to formulate the RFC. The RFC itself will be brief and neutral. Arguments for or against "human-like" can be in the !votes or the discussion. In response to the comment that we may not need an RFC, I have asked User:FelixRosch on his talk page whether he is willing to agree that consensus is against the inclusion of "human-like" in the first paragraph. If he agrees, we don't have an issue. If he wants it in the first paragraph, then we should use either RFC or DRN, and I prefer RFC, because it receives wider attention. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The third and fourth paragraphs of the introduction to the article do include references to what is actually human-like intelligence. In particular, the third paragraph refers to artificial general intelligence, and the fourth paragraph refers to myth and fiction. My own opinion is that those references are satisfactory, and that the only real issue has to do with the first paragraph. If anyone objects to the third and fourth paragraphs, then we may need another part to the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Your comment in the above seems to have missed the additions of the editor Qwertyus which are worthy of some consideration. I am supporting Qwertyus even though the suggestion abridges my edit substantially and am reverting to that version as offering a point of agreement between editors which was previously not available. In restoring the Qwertyus version, I shall also stipulate that if (If) it is acceptable to all involved editors, then I shall not pursue further changes to the first sentence of the Lede which has been debated. Second, if (If) the neutral Qwertyus edit is acceptable, then I will stipulate that I shall accept the abridgment to my second sentence in the first paragraph of the Lede as well with the dropping of the phrase dealing with weak AI and strong AI there. The rest of the material would need to remain in its Qwertyus form, and all editors can return to regular editing activities. My previous offer that both @CharlesG and @RobertM, as explicit supporters of weak-AI, will also still stand as an open invitation to them to further develop the sections and content in the main body of the article dealing with weak-AI. Your own supporter @MadScientist has even asked you, Where is it?, where is it? My edit here is to support Qwertyus as offering a useful edit. FelixRosch (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not acceptable, of course, as I have argued above.

We do not need your permission "to return regular editing activities".

The term "weak AI" is never used in the way you are using it, so please don't call me a "supporter" of it. Do you mean "AI research into non-humanlike intelligence as well as human-like intelligence"? That would seem to follow from the position you hold. If so, then I must point out, for the third or fourth time, that most of the article is about what you call "weak AI". None of the topics is exclusively about human-like intelligence. Please read my earlier posts. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 09:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Your comment appears to have missed the useful additions of editor @Qwerty. Your co-editor, @RobertM, has also declined all comment on this edit in preference to his posting a poorly formed RfC replacement for the previous defective RfC. Unless he joins this discussion or replaces/withdraws the currently poorly formed RfC, then it shall be difficult to respond. Your own version was posted as a full page ad for "Weak-AI" on the previous RfC. This discussion must be made on the basis of the current version of the article. FelixRosch (talk) 14:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I am aware of Qwerty's contribution and I agree that is useful (especially in that he removed the misuse of the terms "strong AI" and "weak AI"). However, it does not change the fact that major AI textbooks and major AI researchers deliberately avoid defining artificial intelligence in terms of human intelligence, and that removing the word "human-like" does no harm to the article. I have proven this with solid evidence from all the major sources. Qwerty's actions are irrelevant in that he did not disprove these facts, and neither have you. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

That is still not a justification for an overly generalized version of the Lede section which is being supported by your co-editor User:RobertM and yourself on the poorly formed RfC below. Nor is your personal attack justified on @Qwerty calling those edits "irrelevant". Please note that your co-editor RobertM is not joining you here to support you on this. FelixRosch (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

You are not reading my post very carefully. DO NOT accuse me of a personal attack -- I complimented Qwerty on his edit. His edit was fine, but the original, ongoing issue involves the term "human-like", and Qwerty's edit did not change this. There is no consensus for a version that says AI "generally studies the goal of emulating human-like intelligence." This is the issue at hand. I did not say that Qwerty's edit was irrelevant. It is your comments that are not helpful and that are avoiding the subject.

The most reliable mainstream source (Russell & Norvig) rejects the idea of emulating human-like intelligence as goal for AI. It doesn't matter what I think, or what you think, or what Robert thinks. This is not a vote, this is not an issue that we get to decide ourselves. It has already been decided by the mainstream AI sources. You have no basis for your argument, other than your own insistence.

And, as I have said before: this is not a position that I personally agree with. This is a position that the article must take, because it is the only one available from the most reliable source. We don't get to make up things here on Wikipedia and then just insist on them. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 03:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Your personal attacks upon @Qwertyus must stop and calling him "irrelevant", to use your word, is not Wikipedia policy. You must also stop misrepresenting the case to admin @Redrose64 that your edit is unanimous since your poorly formulated RfC is against both User:Qwertyus and myself who support "emulation" as a fair summary of the article in its current state. @Redrose64 is an experienced editor who can explain your difficulties to you if you represent the matter as it is, and that your position is not unanimously supported in this poorly formed RfC. Please note that your co-editor RobertM is not joining you here to support you on this. FelixRosch (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I did not call Qwertyus' edit, irrelevant to the article or to the topic, and certainly did not say that Qwertyus is irrelevant. I said it was irrelevant TO OUR DISPUTE about the term "human-like", which it obviously is because he neither removed nor added the term human like. QED. This will be the second time I have proved this, using plain English. I would prefer it if you would read my posts before responding. I'm finding it difficult to believe that you can't follow what I'm saying, and, if I assume good faith, I must also assume you are not reading them. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

And just to stay on point: the most reliable sources carefully and deliberately DO NOT define artificial intelligence as studying or emulating "human-like" intelligence, and this is an issue which many major AI researchers feel strongly about. Adding the term "human-like" to the lede is an insult to the hard work that these researchers have done to define their field. Wikipedia's editors do not have the right to define "artificial intelligence", so it does not matter what you think or what I think or what anyone thinks. What matters is the sources. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Your personal attack against @Qwertyus was "Qwerty's actions are irrelevant", and your personal attack must stop. Are you now denying that this is a direct quote of your personal attack on another fellow editor? Also, to stay on point, your misrepresentation of your claim to "unanimous" support to admin must be withdrawn with full apology to the editor @Redrose for this misrepresentation. Your position is not unanimous, you are using an old outdated 2008 textbook for a high tech field, and your poorly formed RfC with your co-editor @RobertM promoting your preference for "Weak-AI" should be withdrawn. FelixRosch (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

May I cordially suggest to CharlesGillingham that you leave this rant, and any repetitions that follow, unanswered? The rest of us can all see for ourselves where it is coming from, there is no need to defend yourself against it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Human-Like in Lede, and RFC again

I have removed the phrase "human-like" from the lede again. To state that the primary purpose of artificial intelligence is the implementation of human-like intelligence (regardless of what is meant by that) is misleading and impoverishes a field that has made significant contributions without achieving the mythic objective of human-like intelligence. Consensus is currently running in favor of keeping that phrase out of the first sentence. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I've removed it again. If the RFC suddenly goes the other way, of course we can put it back in. But it doesn't seem unreasonable to leave it out for now, since the RFC has been running for over a week and not a single editor has spoken in favor of the phrase "human-like". APL (talk) 03:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

At least one editor favors the use of the phrase "human-like" in the lede sentence. It has been inserted by one registered editor and one IP. The registered editor disputed the RFC rather than participating in it. There should be references to "human-like" intelligence in various parts of the article, but the topic should not be restricted by including that phrase in the first sentence. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, OK, but now is the time for that editor to speak up. Trying to instigate change after the RFC has run its course will be nearly impossible.

If he's got a reasonable argument, he should be making it, so that the non-partial, uninvolved editors coming here for the RFC can see both sides of the issue. APL (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Since you have asked: The history of the edit dispute with CharlesG started 3 months ago and can be summarized briefly in 4-5 comments.

(1) Three months ago I read this article and saw that in its current form that the article was oriented to the human engineering and reverse human engineering perspectives of AI in all of the first 8 (eight) sections. Section 2.1 was about the emulation of human deduction, section 2.2 was about the emulation of human knowledge representation, 2.3 was about the emulation of human planning, 2.4 was about the emulation of human learning, 2.5 was about the emulation of human natural language processing (there is no other type of natural language processing), 2.6 was about the emulation of human perception, 2.7 was about the emulation of the human equivalent motion and manipulation, and the same for section 2.8. Given the article in its current form, I then added to term human-like in the Lede to accurately represent the article as it exists in its current form. CharlesG disagreed stating his belief that from a general perspective not limited to the article itself, that the over-arching and general version of intelligence was his personal preference to defend his own Weak-AI perspective.

(2) My response to CharlesG was that even if what he said was true, that WP:Lede requires that the Lede summarize the article as it exists in its current form, and not from the general perspective of how AI could be defined in a future version of the article which may at some time in the future be re-written to highlight his preference for the Weak-AI perspective. I also made multiple invitations to CharlesG to add his information on Weak-AI into the article to increase its prominence in the article, which he refused to do. The key issue is that in its current form, the body of the article is oriented to human engineering and reverse human engineering as its main perspective in all of its eight opening section, which by WP:Lede is what should be summarized in the Lede based on this article in its current form at this point in time. CharlesG declined my multiple invites to expand the Weak-AI material in the article and decided to file a Dispute Resolution Notice, as his preferred path to resolution. I fully acknowledged and answered the Dispute Resolution Process issues raised there.

(3) After filing the dispute resolution notice, RobertM then falsely presented himself as a neutral and non-biased mediator of the Dispute Resolution Process and recommended strongly that CharlesG withdraw the Dispute Resolution Notice and file an RfC instead, and CharlesG accepted the advice. Although it looked odd, RobertM was presenting himself as a non-biased mediator making suggestions and CharlesG filed an RfC. The resulting RfC was criticized by RobertM, as the first (previous) RfC became a full page advertisement for the Weak-AI position and was withdrawn by ChalesG and RobertM together.

(4) When I challenged RobertM 2-3 times on his Talk page about what he was doing, he then affirmed that he was not neutral (not NPOV) and that he was biased to the Weak-AI perspective on his Talk page against my reading. He appeared to take the approach that by controlling the RfC process that he could steer the results to the Weak-AI perspective, regardless of the content of the article in its current form, and force his form of the Weak-AI friendly version of the Lede. I then extended the same invitation to RobertM that they (with CharlsG) expand the Weak-AI material in the main body of the article first because WP:Lede requires that only material in main body of the article can be used for the Lede summary, but he refused the invitation. He then posted a second version of the RfC stating his own preferred version of the Lede as the only feasible option without disclosing his own bias against NPOV, and without presenting any of this history to the newly emerging editors joining the discussion for the first time. There are now 4 (four) versions of the edit for the Lede available (Qwertus, CharlesG, mine, and one by SteelPillow), not the one option which RobertM has offered in his biased RfC as his one and only "solution".

(5) The unbiased version of an RfC would simply list the 4 (four) options just mentioned above without prejudice and ask editors to indicate support-or-oppose for their preference, again without prejudicing new editors to one and only one "solution". The RobertM version of the RfC is biased for this reason and should be deleted as being non-neutral and against npov. FelixRosch (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The issue is sources. Major AI textbooks and AI's leaders carefully and specifically define the field as studying all kinds of intelligence, not just human intelligence. FelixRosch's reading of the article is mistaken. Please see detailed arguments above.---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no requirement that the author of an RFC be neutral, only that the wording of the RFC be neutral. Does FelixRosch have a proposed alternate wording for the RFC? Defacing an RFC (since reverted) by changing the RFC's own lead question to a protest about the RFC is not an appropriate use of the RFC process. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The issue remains that your version does not appear as neutral. If there are 4 options, then you are not supposed to single out only one of them (which you prefer) to the exclusion of the other choices. You appear to want to write the RfC while not admitting your own bias. An unbiased version is outlined in item (5) directly above your comment here. Your biased RfC should be withdrawn or deleted. FelixRosch (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:RFC explains what to do in this situation: "If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template. Do not close the RfC just because you think the wording is biased." Hope this helps. 83.104.46.71 (talk) 09:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC) (steelpillow (talk · contribs) dropping by during my wikibreak).

"Five Editors"

Perhaps Felix could enlighten us as to who the "five editors" that agree with him are? They seem to express their specific agreement for every single edit Felix has made here, but I can never figure out who they are. 74.113.53.42 (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that he is counting me and User:Steelpillow, but I don't entirely agree with him, and I don't know about Steelpillow. My own opinion is the Felix is arguing that there is a consensus when we are still trying to establish consensus. Arguing that there is a consensus when one is still being worked out is non-collaborative. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Is There a Current RFC, or should we go to DRN, or should Peer Review status be discussed

I don't see a currently running RFC on the lede. It had been my understanding that the RFC would be re-opened, but it is boxed. There isn't consensus on what the lede should say. If there isn't agreement on an RFC, I will try moderated dispute resolution. ~~

It occurs to be of significance to list the various AI disciplines covered by the various editors in the last week since there seems more which is of relevance here than just Weak AI and Human Engineering. FelixRosch (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I see that User:FelixRosch changed the wording of the heading. Is he suggesting Wikipedia peer review? I don't think, based on my knowledge of Wikipedia peer review, that it is in order. It is used to bring an article to GA or FA status when there is consensus as to content. We don't have consensus on the lede. Do we want a new RFC, or to re-open the old RFC, or do we need DRN? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon; It would be useful at this time to see the complete list of leading AI disciplines as identified by the editors here. If you know what that list is (or someone else) then lets see the list which is more that just Weak AI and Human Engineering. FelixRosch (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Robert. The RFC only looks closed at the moment because of Felix' continuing disruption. As far as I can see the sequence of events was:

You effectively asked whether or not the current RFC should be closed.
Felix offered to add a variant of his preferred phrase if you closed it.
You agreed to do so, and then marked the RFC as closed without waiting for any further reactions. As I've already pointed out an RFC can be closed early, but none of the criteria for doing so apply here.
The closure was reverted (not by me). At this point WP:BRD should probably have applied, but instead Felix started another round of edit warring, which is currently still ongoing.

I appreciate that your closure was made with the best of intentions but it is clear that there is no general agreement to close the RFC early. I think you can take the subsequent reversions etc as "keep it open" answers to your original question.

If it were closed early, the closure notice should, just as for a normal closure, contain a neutral evaluation of the responses. The result from the responses so far is quite clear and does not correspond to your proposed closure rationale.

For these reasons please reopen the RFC yourself and let it run its normal course. --Mirokado (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The RFC bot template had been deleted, and the RFC was boxed. I have added a new RFC bot template and have removed the archive box. That really reopens the RFC. Since there seems to be considerable support for the wording of the RFC, any editing or defacing of the RFC will be treated as disruptive editing. We can also open an RFC on deep learning if that is desired. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Deep Learning (original section)

I've noticed a couple of reverts on this topic. I agree with the people who don't want Deep Learning as a separate major sub-heading. If you look at the major AI text books none of them have a chapter heading "Deep Learning" to my recollection. AI is such a broad topic we need to be sure to not try and have this article cover every single thing that has ever been described as AI but stick to the major topics. Deep learning merits its own article and a link from this article to it but not a whole section in this article. Rather than just keep reverting I think we should try to reach some consensus first and the advocates of Deep Learning should cite some major AI text books that have it as a major topic or say why they think that is not an appropriate criteria for what things should be covered in this article. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

"Deep learning" is not mentioned in the leading AI textbook, Russell and Norvig's Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. This is why I removed this material, as a five-paragraph section is WP:UNDUE weight for a relatively minor topic. One sentence in the section on neural networks would be appropriate, if anything.

I noticed FelixRosch has reverted my removal ... ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 02:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Felix -- if you would like to make an argument against me, now is the time. I will be removing deep learning section eventually, unless you can provide a convincing argument that it is four times as important as statistical AI, twelve times as important as neural networks, fuzzy computation and evolutionary computation, or equally important to the history of AI as symbolic AI. This is the weight this article gives to these sub-fields.

I also remind you that the only thing that counts here is reliable sources, and "deep learning" does not appear in the 1000+ pages of the most popular AI textbook. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Done --- CharlesGillingham (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Too soon on this deletion. You still have not answered: Previous editor has apparently not read the sixty-three (63) books and articles clearly present on the plainly linked article for "Deep learning". FelixRosch (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

There are many subtopics in AI that have hundreds of articles and books written about them. This is an overview article on AI. It's not meant to cover every possible topic in the field. For example: Case-based reasoning, Knowledge-Based Software Engineering, Distributed AI,... All those topics have MORE than 63 books and articles. It's a common problem in these articles that everyone wants their favorite topic to receive special attention. I agree with those who want to remove deep learning as a major subtopic. I don't agree that anyone needs to address the fact that there are 63 books and articles on the topic. It's not a strong argument for inclusion. I think looking at some standard AI textbooks such as R&N and seeing which topics receive major chapters is a much better guideline. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a well-developed DL article. From the reader's perspective there are more valuable things for us to do than battle over the degree of article overlap. It would be one click to the full scoop on DL, or as full as one will find at Wikipedia, anyway. I promise you, exceedingly few Wikipedia readers care about the strength of the DL-AI connection. Wikipedia is not an academic journal, the majority of its readers on this topic are not academics, and the article should not be written for academics. As a non-academic, I am often very disappointed when I go to a Wikipedia article hoping to learn something about a scientific topic, and find the article completely inaccessible to me because it was written by academics who lack a clue how to write for ordinary intelligent people. ‑‑Mandruss (t) 17:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

(Also posted below) There was consensus for lowering the weight of "deep learning", based on the fact that it does not appear in the leading AI textbook. I added a one-sentence mention of deep learning in the appropriate section (deep learning is a neural network technique).

Keep in mind that AI is a very large field; we are trying to summarize hundreds of thousands of technical papers, thousands of courses, and thousands of popular books. A few magazine articles is not nearly enough weight to merit that many paragraphs.

I would say that "weight" is the most difficult part of editing a summary article like this one, especially because AI is an interesting topic and there are thousands of "pet theories", "interesting new ideas", "new organizing principles" and "contrarian points of view" out there. Occasionally they get added to this article, and we have to weed them out.

That's why we have used the leading AI textbooks as the gold standard for inclusion in this article. (See Talk:Artificial intelligence/Textbook survey to see how this was originally done.) There's no better way to have an objective standard that I can think of. Russell and Norvig is almost 1000 pages and covers a truly vast amount of information, far more than we could summarize here. We have even skipped topics that have their own journals.

At any rate, "deep learning" is not in those 1000 pages, and I need more than a magazine article to consider it important enough to cover here, but, as a compromise, I added a sentence under neural networks. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 01:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Felix: Re: the 66 footnotes in the article deep learning. Do any of these contain the assertion that "deep learning" is more important to AI, as, say, statistical techniques in general? This is what your edit asserts, because this is the weight you are giving to the topic. In fact, the question doesn't even make sense, because deep learning is defined by Hinton in terms of neural networks, and neural networks are a subset of both statistical and sub-symbolic AI. Again, to be frank, it doesn't seem to me that you are familiar enough with the subject to be casually reverting a good faith, consensus-derived edit. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about this section has been continued below (#Deep Learning). --Mirokado (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Can We Try Again on Human-Like Issue

I am willing to take another try at an RFC on the use of the phrase "human-like" in the lede. If a better phrasing of the RFC is agreed on, then the bot header can be deleted and the discussion of the RFC can be boxed when the new RFC is published. It is probably appropriate to delete and restate this RFC anyway, because it has been refactored and defaced, making the answers inconsistent. Does anyone have a better wording of the RFC?

I, for one, do not object to a phrasing that includes "human-like" in a context such as "whether human-like or otherwise". I only object to a phrasing that implies that human-like intelligence is the primary objective of AI. It is one of the objectives of AI, and not the one that has been successful yet (in spite of the dreams of a technological singularity that have been on the moving horizon for decades).

If we can't get agreement on a revised RFC, it may be that moderated dispute resolution is the best approach after all. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Offer to stipulate. You appear to be saying that of the 4 options from various editors which I listed above as being on the discussion table, that you have a preference for version (d) by Steelpillow, and that you are willing to remove the disputed RfC under the circumstance that the Steeltrap version be posted as being a neutral version of the edit. Since I accept that the editors on this page are in general of good faith, then I can stipulate that if (If) you will drop this RfC by removing the template, etc, that I shall then post the version of Steeltrap from 3 October on Talk in preference to the Qwerty version of 1 October. The 4 paragraph version of the Lede of Qwerty will then be posted updated with the 3 October phrase of Steelpillow ("...whether human-like or not") with no further amendations. It is not your version and it is not my version, and all can call it the Steelpillow version the consensus version. If agreed then all you need do is close/drop the RfC, and then I'll post the Steelpillow version as the consensus version. FelixRosch (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Done - Your turn. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Done Installing new 4 paragraph version of Lede following terms of close-out by originating Editor RobertM and consensus of 5 editors. It is the "Steelpillow" version of the new Lede following RfC close-out on Talk. FelixRosch (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment : An RFC is not just a contest between two people, and a consensus is not just the agreement between those two. FelixRosch has no particular authority to dictate terms, especially as the RFC was clearly leaning away from his position. APL (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The RFC has been widely publicised now, which is why I contributed to it. Let it run its course and accept the result, whatever that might be. Stop editing the part of the article affected by it. --Mirokado (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I now notice that the RFC was closed out of process. I have reverted that. The version of the lead updated in relation to that is full of repetition and bad grammar: "an academic field of study which generally studies the goal of studying ..., whether by in ...". But in any case it is better to keep the text stable during an RFC so I have restored the version which was subject to the RFC (at least when the bot sent its random notifications). --Mirokado (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC) (updated Mirokado (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC))

Would anyone object to reverting to any of the versions of the lede from 2007 to 2014? It contained the same content for that entire time, only changing by a word or two here and there? ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 00:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Well yes, I'm afraid I would. An RFC is a formal process where the community has a month to consider content editors give their opinions and an uninvolved closer determines consensus. While we would remove something cosmic like a BLP violation, we should leave that part of the article alone so that everyone is basing their comments on the same text. The current text has the advantage in the context of the RFC that editors can see the phrase being discussed without having to guess which previous version to open. --Mirokado (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Does it matter that this dispute began when I reverted FelixRosch's addition of "human-like" from the lede? Before his edit, it had been very stable for seven years or so. Since then he has reverted or subverted every attempt to remove his edit; this is the source of the dispute. Shouldn't it stay in the "last stable version"? It hasn't been stable since FelixRosch added his edit. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 03:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, I'm happy to wait until the RfC is over. Just wanted you to know what was happening. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 03:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The sentence "[AI] is an academic field of study which generally studies the goal of emulating human-like intelligence." is unsourced. Adding a cn tag. pgr94 (talk) 01:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Pgr94 is correct; it needs a source more reliable than Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, which you're not going to find. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 03:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Undid revision 629913001. You are reverting against a consensus of 5 editors. Restore Close-out by Author of RfC. Please follow Wikipedia policy for establishing consensus first. FelixRosch (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus for closing the RFC. It was not just a contest between Felix and Robert McClenon. The two of them together should not close it, even if they, personally have resolved their differences. APL (talk) 21:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Undid revision 630029056 You appear to be reverting against 5 editors in consensus including the originating author RobertM. This is the Steelpillow version of the edit. You have not contacted any of them to try to make consensus prior to editing and you are not following Wikipedia procedure and policy. FelixRosch (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It appears that I misunderstood what User:FelixRosch had offered. I thought that he had agreed to stipulate an alternate wording of the RFC. He apparently wanted to stipulate an alternate wording of the lede, bypassing the RFC process. Should a new RFC be used, or should the original (before being edited and defaced) wording of the RFC be stored, or should moderated dispute resolution be used? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs:

It is clear that an RFC can be withdrawn by the poster "if the community's response became obvious very quickly". If you are going to assert that, then the contested wording must be removed from the article. I think a formal close may be more subtle, and I don't think the result is clear enough to close it for that reason.
The RFC may be closed "if the participants can agree to end it". They obviously have not agreed to end it (@FelixRosch: should provide diffs if I have missed a relevant, prominent conversation involving five or more of the participants in the last day or so).
@Robert McClenon: You are welcome to request help with this (for example at WP:DRN) and I will be happy to cooperate with whatever results from such a request, but until then I think we should let the RFC carry on. The opinions expressed by the thirteen or so participants so far cannot be ignored which is effectively what would happen if two editors decide between themselves what to do.

I will yet again reopen the RFC, because otherwise the bot will remove the entry prematurely and that will cause even more trouble. --Mirokado (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Moderated dispute resolution isn't in order if the RFC is still running. Is the current wording of the RFC the wording that I originated, or has it been edited again (let alone defaced again)? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mirokado, The edit which has the 5 (five) editor consensus is the "Steelpillow "version of the edit and Not the one you yourself quoted in your Talk comment above. It is also referred to as the "include Both" edit with RobertM using the phase "whether human-like or not". Please read this in the above, and please accept that this is a 5 editor consensus edit which closed the RfC. Please follow Wikipedia policies and procedures and establish consensus here on Talk prior to further edits. RobertM is likely to support you in further discussion within this section below. @Robert McClenon; You presently hold the 5 (five) person consensus as you acknowledged it. You do not appear to have received as much credit as you deserve for having done this. You have held me to strict terms to support the Steelpillow edit and I have accepted those strict terms. You currently have a 5 editor consensus for the closing of the RfC and continuing the discussion here in this section below for subsequent discussion. FelixRosch (talk) 14:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Your persistent disruption of this RFC is totally unacceptable. Stop your edit warring to impose a result contrary to the developing community consensus. It is open again.

You still have not provided diffs for the conversation about closing this RFC involving five editors. I don't believe there has been such a conversation. The conversation at the start of this section is only between you and one other editor. No agreement by two editors to ignore developing community consensus (involving fourteen or so editors so far) is going to be accepted. No attempt to close an RFC prematurely by an editor with whom most respondents disagree is going to be accepted. --Mirokado (talk) 03:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Undid revision 630191794 You appear to be edit warring against a 5 editor consensus for an RfC closed by the originating author RobertM. Please stop WP:EW and WP:3RR. Your next edit puts you over 3RR and your Talk page is posted forWP:EW against consensus of 5 editors. You have not even tried one single time to contact RobertM concerning the established consensus or anyone else. RobertM has made genuine progress for a discussion over a month long for the first time by establishing a consensus of 5 editors. You have been invited to seek consensus in the discussion below in this section and you have refused. Please stop edit warring and please follow Wikipedia policy and procedures for establishing consensus before you edit. FelixRosch (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

(contribution which seems intended to be part of the RFC itself moved there. OP notified). --Mirokado (talk) 23:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@FelixRosch: who are the five editors you keep mentioning? I don't count that many, and far more opposed. ---- 172.250.79.167 (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)