Well, since you asked, though I must ay that my only qualifications in
traditional AI is one course in my masters program, so I'm not sure why you'd
care.. :) I think the more you look into classic AI, the less impressive it is
from an explanatory POV. A lot of it seems to me like a kind of OR for
cognition AFAICT. So yeah, I'd agree that to equate the sophistication and
beauty of the human experience encountering, playing and mastering chess with
that of a glorified tree-search -- no matter how finally tuned or dressed up --
is to completely misinterpret the whole point of intelligence. Its a
fundamental confusion between awareness and basic curiosity on the one hand and
quickness and large memory on the other. I'm really convinced by the pattern
over symbols arguments, and in particular I think it's really telling that soft
logic approaches seem to fall apart under longer inference chains. All of this
is not to say that classic AI approaches aren't insightful and cool, but that
their relationship to intelligence is glancing and superficial. And at the same
time, I think the AI label actually limits the appreciation of all of the cool
things that we *can* do with symbolic logic techniques. It's as if everyone
decided to call the Wright brother's flyer an artificial bird and the name
stuck.
And now we see all of this coming back in the guise of exabyte science or
whatever they're calling it. Hey we have lot's of data! We'll get answers for
free!!
On Dec 16, 2009, at 9:47 PM, Carl Tollander wrote:
As long as we're on AI and Math (whenever were we not) , recall that the hard
problems in AI are less matters of chess and more those of the first five
years of development. Here are some mathematicians discussing same -
Interesting to see how the conversation unfolds.got some Category Theory
in thar too!
http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2009/12/can_fiveyearolds_compute_copro.html
Maybe we should be asking Miles and Reed about AI fundamentals.
BTW, does anyone have a copy of Drew McDermott's Critique of Pure Reason, (ie
a crisp semantics does not a logic make) which is in part a critique of the
Naive Physics Manifesto?
carl
Robert J. Cordingley wrote:
More on non-algorithmic computing from Penrose:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor's_New_Mind
but I don't see how the brain can use quantum mechanics since it's
biochemical and operates on a different scale. Has anyone read Penrose's
book and can recommend it or not (even tho' it was awarded a prize by the
Royal Society)?
Robert C
Robert J. Cordingley wrote:
Didn't it take an algorithm (an Inference Engine) to process the
heuristics? Also show me some silicon that doesn't use an algorithm
somewhere. So do you suppose the Mind Machine Project is a way to break
free of this computing/algorithmic model?
Robert C
Pamela McCorduck wrote:
Most of early AI was heuristics, not algorithms. Some algorithms were
incorporated into expert systems, in the belief that if an algorithm could
solve the problem, fine; if not, heuristics might. But it was always
*might*. True, computers can't solve all problems, neither can humans.
P.
A cold coming we had of it,
Just the worst time of the year
For a journey, and such a long journey;
The ways deep and the weather sharp.
The very dead of winter.
T.S. Eliot
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
