Talk:History of artificial intelligence: Difference between revisions

 

Line 107: Line 107:

In short, they’re no more intelligent than a text editor and they’re barely artificial. [[Special:Contributions/~2025-32326-81|~2025-32326-81]] ([[User talk:~2025-32326-81|talk]]) 15:59, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

In short, they’re no more intelligent than a text editor and they’re barely artificial. [[Special:Contributions/~2025-32326-81|~2025-32326-81]] ([[User talk:~2025-32326-81|talk]]) 15:59, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

== Trimming history sections ==

This is regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_artificial_intelligence&diff=1322603887&oldid=1322502034 these two edits]. My intention was to trim some of the redundancy and tangents from the article, for brevity and focus. Much of this was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_artificial_intelligence&diff=prev&oldid=947569965 originally added in 2020] by a student editor, and to be blunt, it reads like it was intended to meet a quota for a grade. There were also too many [[MOS:OVERLINK]]s and editorializing asides. The article should mainly summarize secondary sources which directly connect primary sources to this topic itself, otherwise picking examples of magical life forms from throughout history is a form of [[WP:OR]]. I would also be cautious of citing [[David Berlinski]]. He is prolific and florid, so any examples he cites may not be due weight, and there are also are [[WP:FRINGE]] issues. [[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] ([[User talk:Grayfell|talk]]) 03:36, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

	History of artificial intelligence was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Current status: Delisted good article

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ferna235 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Thecanyon (talk) 05:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn’t E. T. A. Hoffman’s stories ( The Sandman (1816) and Automata (1814) ) be mentioned? Kdammers (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, this article has too many fictional and mythological precursors already. CharlesTGillingham (talk) 08:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it no relevant?

By 2023, generative artificial intelligence has already surpassed human intelligence in some specific areas such as the search for new proteins and strategy games.^[1] 176.200.82.175 (talk) 08:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this belongs in the article progress in artificial intelligence. This article is very long and we can only cover the most notable developments. —- CharlesTGillingham (talk) 02:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article needs a major overhaul in the sections post-2010. This source may turn out to be useful in a rewrite. —- CharlesTGillingham (talk) 02:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lotsobear555 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Lotsobear555 (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of the major overviews (Russell & Norvig, McCorduck, Crevier, Nilsson, Newquist) mention WABOT, as far as I know. —- CharlesTGillingham (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CharlesTGillingham (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cut this as well for brevity. I’m under the impression that specialized hardware did not have last influence and wasn’t widely used. Most work was on digital computers and the most influential work of the time (1980s) was theoretical.

—- CharlesTGillingham (talk) 04:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is one domain where Deep learning (not yet called that) was successful as early as the end of 1980s, the prediction of protein structures. People like Terry Sejnowski started to use neural net to predict secondary structures

N Qian, TJ Sejnowski (1988) Predicting the secondary structure of globular proteins using neural network models. Journal of molecular biology, 202 (4): 865-884 (cited 1700 times)

And in 1993, Rost and Sander proposed a cascading neural net structure, PHD, that basically killed the field by reaching theoretical maximum accuracy.

Rost, Burkhard, and Chris Sander (1993) Improved prediction of protein secondary structure by use of sequence profiles and neural networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 90.16: 7558-7562. (cited 3900 times)

(well, the absolute best was actually PsiPred, an improvement by David Jones a bit later, using profile matrices rather than multiple sequence alignments

McGuffin, Liam J., Kevin Bryson, and David T. Jones (2000) The PSIPRED protein structure prediction server.” Bioinformatics 16.4: 404-405. (cited > 4000 times)).

Ahaemd 39.56.202.138 (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deepseek is a very important milestone in AI development. It should be mentioned in the article. Robot8in (talk) 13:19, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the section “Boom (1980–1987)” it says ‘a form of AI program called “expert systems”‘
Mousing over it says “an expert system is a computer system emulating the decision-making ability of a human expert.”

They’re just a convoluted load of explicitly coded if/then/else statements based on human rules & heuristics, like “don’t squat when you’re wearing spurs” and “never start a land war in Asia”.

In short, they’re no more intelligent than a text editor and they’re barely artificial. ~2025-32326-81 (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is regarding these two edits. My intention was to trim some of the redundancy and tangents from the article, for brevity and focus. Much of this was originally added in 2020 by a student editor, and to be blunt, it reads like it was intended to meet a quota for a grade. There were also too many MOS:OVERLINKs and editorializing asides. The article should mainly summarize secondary sources which directly connect primary sources to this topic itself, otherwise picking examples of magical life forms from throughout history is a form of WP:OR. I would also be cautious of citing David Berlinski. He is prolific and florid, so any examples he cites may not be due weight, and there are also are WP:FRINGE issues. Grayfell (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]