User talk:CharlesTGillingham

See also User talk:CharlesGillingham

Hi CharlesTGillingham. You've added the references "McCarthy 1997" and "Minsky 1985" to the article

Sorry I formulated that as if you were a new user, only after did I see the "See also User talk:CharlesGillingham" at the top. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to reply to you and what you suggested. I will review your edits now. A lot is going on. Veritas Aeterna (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to reply to:

What we need @Veritas Aeterna:

Here's what I actually want -- I want us to have a history article that describes dominant paradigm of AI research in 60s, 70s and 80s. I believe there is a consensus that such a paradigm existed, that it had incredible initial success, but then ultimately didn't deliver on its promises. I don't care what we call the article -- if it's "GOFAI" that's fine with me. I want the history: who did it, what they did, where they did it, what worked, what didn't work and why it didn't work, who hated it what they decided to do instead. This is the article we need.

Should I build it here?

If so, then are you okay with me cropping the historical elements out of "symbolic AI" and bringing them here? And removing all the low-relevance discussion of terminology from this article (except perhaps a sentence in the lede and a paragraph near the end?). And carefully searching the links pointing into "symbolic AI" to determine which ones should really go to GOFAI (there are a lot)? ---- CharlesTGillingham (talk) 05:10, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't mind if you build separate history sections, but please do not move out the history section in the Symbolic AI article.

I think there were multiple paradigms co-existing throughout the history, as there still are, and the breakdown is NOT clean over decades. So this needs some discussion first.

E.g., Minsky and Papert first starting w neural nets, along with others do cybernetic work, than more emphasis on general problem solvers, then logic (LT), knowledge-based systems, case-based, so on...then a stretch of probabilistic, then 2012 on DL -- now lots going on in neuro-symbolic, too, although I agree DL is "dominant" now.

But the other approaches have hardly gone away. Just not dominant in funding or public's perception, definitely DL and generative AI is there.

Getting caught up on your edits now...

Q: If so, then are you okay with me cropping the historical elements out of "symbolic AI" and bringing them here?

A: No, please leave everything there, I think the article is much more coherent that way. I don't mind if you refer to that section elsewhere, however.

I retracted it because I realized that the "symbolic AI" is pretty the article I want. So the only issue left was how to fix this article. At first I tagged it with a million tags, and then eventually I did more research, and just tried fix it. It's still a bit a of a

CharlesTGillingham (talk) 21:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Artificial intelligence, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

Hi, in this edit you introduce sfn references "Russell & Norvig" with no year, and "Russell & Norvig 2021". Neither source is defined, so cannot be looked up and the article is placed in Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. Please could you fix these? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

CharlesTGillingham (talk) 06:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You added some refs to the references section at

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Artificial intelligence, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Matrix and Vector.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Artificial intelligence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Agent.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Artificial intelligence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mortality.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Artificial intelligence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Partisan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in this edit to Artificial intelligence you introduced {{sfnp|Singer|2018}} but there is no such work listed. This means that nobody can look it up, and adds the article to Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. If you could fix this it would be appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. ----

CharlesTGillingham (talk) 23:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]