On 7/11/07, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The dirty hack I'm referring to is the robotic way this is implemented in programs, not how it's done in humans. With a pattern based program you essentially specify everything and the program is not a participant in the process. It comes down to a list of do's and dont's and if we can claim that knowledge was imparted it might be true, but no wisdom or understanding was.
I'm compelled to point out that neural nets, _trained_ on patterns, which patterns themselves are then discarded, have the ability to "recognize" novel patterns, ones which have never been previously seen, let alone stored. The list of do's and dont's has been discarded, and what to do or not do, in a situation that may never have been seen before, is inferred, not looked-up in a library of rules. So, it is not true that with a pattern-based program "you essentially specify everything". At least, not if you have thrown the patterns away, and have substituted multilayer feedforward networks for that _training_data_.
UCT simulates understanding and wisdom, patterns just simulates knowledge.
This is a very strong assertion. We eagerly await the proof. :-) I can just as easily assert: Trained neural nets simulate understanding and wisdom. (A static pattern library merely simulates knowledge, I agree.)
Again, this is largely philosophical because even UCT programs are robots just following instructions. It's all about what you are trying to simulate and why it's called AI. I think UCT tries to simulate understanding to a much greater extent than raw patterns in a conventional program.
Than raw patterns, yes. Trained neural nets, too, try to simulate understanding to a much greater extent than do raw patterns. Of course Don is right, it boils down to philosophy. And while we're on that topic, ... I regret some of the terms that have come into use with regard to AI, due to the (misguided, in my humble opinion) philosophy of some. The very name "artificial intelligence" bothers me; AI programs are neither. When humans run certain computer programs, the programs may seem "intelligent" enough to perform other tasks. By the implied reasoning, taken to its logical conclusion, a hammer is "intelligent" enough to drive a nail. The military has their so-called "smart bombs" but in truth, machines and algorithms are no more intelligent than hammers. By a similar token, "pattern recognition" bothers me. Machines and algorithms don't "recognize" anything, ever. That's anthropomorphism. A somewhat better term is "pattern classification", but machines don't really classify anything, either. It is we humans who classify, _using_ the machines. It's like saying that the hammer drives the nail, when in fact it is the human who does so, _using_ the hammer. And there is nothing particularly "neural" about "neural networks", other than their origins. (True, they were first invented -- discovered, really -- by someone who was trying to simulate a neuron, but they are much more general than that.) I prefer the term "multilayer feedforward network" for the type of "neural net" commonly used in many domains. (And now in go!) This sort of semantic nitpicking may seem too severe. However, it keeps me from falling into the camp of those who believe that machines will one day literally become intelligent, develop self-awareness, and achieve consciousness. Ain't gonna happen. -- Rich P.S. -- I hated the movie "AI". _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
