Back-propogation is not an "AI" algorithm.
You are ironically doing exactly what this article is about.
Back-propogation is not an "AI" algorithm.
You are ironically doing exactly what this article is about.
My comment is making an entirely uncontroversial statement: that "backpropagation is an AI algorithm". Not that "backpropagation is AI". The latter could be taken to mean that backpropagation is itself artificially intelligent, that it exhibits some kind of intelligence (leaving aside for the moment the fact that we have no agreed upon definition of "intelligence", artificial or otherwise). If I understand your comment correctly, this is the interpretation you make of my comment.
However, what my comment says, and this should be clear from the context ("most researchers will agree"), is that backpropagation is an algorithm from the field of research that is known as AI.
In that context, "AI", "Artificial Intelligence", is the field of research that investigates methods to construct "AI", "Artificial Intelligence(s)". Backpropagation is a component of one such method, neural networks.
I think then that the confusion, which is also discussed, and exhibited, in the article, stems from the fact that the same word is used to describe both "artificial intelligence" and the field that researches artificial intelligence.
And I hope this clarifies the confusion.
Just saying "no it isn't" is just not helpful or useful.
You are the example it is making.
There are no accepted definitions of these terms. Are they meaningless?
AI that does not include backpropagation or logical deduction or GA's or optimisation is... is... magical thinking. AI without the nuts and bolts from the last 50 years of work is meaningless. The article is heartfelt, and we all agree with the tenant that people pretending that they are using AI when they are really using a database isn't a good thing, but if you take any current system look right down inside it all you will find is a Shannon type implementation of church-turing.