LaszloNagy wrote:
Can I ask and can someone explain to me what is AI about anything in this video?
This is simply an algorithm with many parameters and variables. If this is AI, then most GDL objects are AI, as they generate countless variations of geometry based on user input and parameters.
My understanding is that AI makes decisions on its own which looks like human intelligence.
I don't see anything in this video that does that, anything that is not determined by a human programmer.
I think this would be AI if the program would place the variant it thinks is the best without asking a human and it would be confident in its decision. So, the AI would have to be able to have its own viewpoint and would have to be able to form its own opinion.
Also, my understanding is that AI involves Machine Learning. I don't see any learning on the part of the program in this video.
Emre wrote:
Just to add to what Podolsky is saying, here's a quick video of the tool in action:
.......
Whether or not this is well implemented in Revit I don't know, but from a first look, it seems like an interesting tool that would be certainly of use to bigger practices, and perhaps even small ones. Not saying this is the most important tool needed in AC, but it is a very good example of AI implementation.
It is not AI (...in the strictest sense of the term).
It is at best,...."
AI-like
". (while, not really)
There's a lot of conflation in this discussion between the expressions like "AI" (Artificial Intelligence, which is a whole separate, deeply involved field all on its own in Computer science technology, and which does involved aspects like Machine learning, Evolutionary algorithms, Genetic algorithms, etc)), "AI-like" algorithms (which are NOT AI in the strictest sense, but perform certain functions that may seem to mimic parts of of how AI operates) and finally "AI-assisted algorithms" (also not AI, but closer to AI than "AI-like" algorithms, but also in themselves mimicking certain functions of AI-functionality in limited fashion as part of larger algorithms or programs that have nothing at all to do with AI).
And admittedly and arguably there's probably a lot of cross-over between what would be considered "AI-assisted" and "AI-like"
That's why I think the whole discussion about AI in that other thread is woefully misguided and wrong-headed because most of what they're talking about there have to do with the latter two (AI-like algorithms and AI-assisted algorithms), and not strictly "AI" itself.
Nobody is going to create a strictly speaking AI algorithm or AI program to replace the functions of what architects do at a holistic level any time soon because what architects do can't be boiled down to just data and numbers as can be done in other fields.
You're not going to have automated drafters working at architecture shops the way you have automated tellers at banks replacing human tellers, or automated checkout stations at supermarkets replacing human clerks because most of what constitutes the functions of those kind of positions easily replaced by algorithm-driven auto-teller or auto-cashier machines are routine, rote-based, repetitive, data-driven duties and functions that involve little or not problem-solving, creativity, and independent decision-making on the level that you have with architecture.
(and to be really strict here, the algorithms and programs that drive those automated cash machines or auto-checkouts at the supermarket are NOT "AI" themselves at all even in the most liberal sense, and at best are only partially "AI-assisted". If that even)
Even taking it farther to more complex sort of algorithms and programs that perform really high-skill tasks and jobs. Autopilots in both the automobile and airplane sense (which we all can agree are relatively very complex tasks and high-(mental)concentration sort of things for humans to do), the algorithms in those are still very much data driven and predicated on operating within a very well-defined set of parameters and rules that don't make or leave much room for the sort of innovation and creative thinking (even in the simulated sense) that defines how we understand "AI" to work.
There's a reason, beyond just liability and legal considerations why the likes of Tesla still require a fully qualified human driver sitting behind the wheel of their Autopilot-driven cars and why even despite the fact that planes nowadays can pretty much take-off, fly intercontinental and land themselves all on autopilot, they STILL require at least TWO human pilots in the cockpit for the entire flight.
Ironically, one of the best examples of what a basic "AI" algorithm would be is the kinds that have been with us almost since the inception of computer programming.
Chess programs.
Present them with unexpected scenarios with each iteration and move, in trying to prevent them from accomplishing their goal, and the program devises an optimal response (based on analysis, calculation, weighing of probabilities and possible scenarios, on and up to a level most humans can't. i.e. still data-driven) from an set of multiple options available to it.
Wash. Rinse. Repeat until enemy King is dead.
That, on a basic level is how we as humans think.
Adapting to each changing set of circumstances especially from unforeseen or unforeseeable outcomes.
Most "AI-assisted" or "AI-like" algorithms are not capable of that, nor designed to do that, and it's what strictly speaking AI technology study tends to focus on, including machine learning.
There's a whole lot of complexity and mystery as to how the human brain works and how we think, adapt to situations, solve problems, create and design - a lot of which we still don't even understand fully.
The field of Artificial Intelligence barely seeks to create a basis for simulating this on a very rudimentary level, before you even begin to account for more esoteric aspects of cognition like morality, philosophy, "faith" or spirituality and the like.
