mark@umcp-cs.UUCP (Mark Weiser) (02/13/86)
A recent posting called the Dreyfus' "self-styled philosophers". This
is unfair, since Hubert Dreyfus is also styled a philosopher by many another
philosopher in the area of phenomenology.
"Self-styled computer scientist" ok.
-mark
--
Spoken: Mark Weiser ARPA: mark@maryland Phone: +1-301-454-7817
CSNet: mark@umcp-cs UUCP: {seismo,allegra}!umcp-cs!mark
USPS: Computer Science Dept., University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742ladkin@kestrel.ARPA (Peter Ladkin) (02/14/86)
In article <3189@umcp-cs.UUCP>, mark@umcp-cs.UUCP (Mark Weiser) writes: > A recent posting called the Dreyfus' "self-styled philosophers". This > is unfair, since Hubert Dreyfus is also styled a philosopher by many another > philosopher in the area of phenomenology. Agreed. He is also a professional philosopher, holding a chair at U.C. Berkeley. His criticisms of AI claims are thoroughly thought through, with a rigor that a potential critic of his views would do well to emulate. He has done AI great service by forcing practitioners to be more self-critical. AAAI should award him distinguished membership! His main thesis is that there are certain human qualities and attributes, for example certain emotions, that are just not the kinds of things that are amenable to mechanical mimicry. This general claim seems unexceptional. His examples may not always be the most appropriate for his claims, some of his arguments seem to be incorrect, and, since he isn't a practicing computer scientist, his knowledge of current research is lacking. But it is intellectual sloppiness to deride him without addressing his arguments. There is, however, a political component to the discussion. He believes he is able to show that certain types of research cannot justify the claims they make on the basis of which they are funded. He may be right in some of these cases. This is clearly a sensitive issue, which muddies the intellectual waters. Both sides would do well to separate the issues. Peter Ladkin
dpb@philabs.UUCP (Paul Benjamin) (02/17/86)
> In article <3189@umcp-cs.UUCP>, mark@umcp-cs.UUCP (Mark Weiser) writes: > > A recent posting called the Dreyfus' "self-styled philosophers". This > > is unfair, since Hubert Dreyfus is also styled a philosopher by many another > > philosopher in the area of phenomenology. > > Agreed. He is also a professional philosopher, holding a chair at > U.C. Berkeley. His criticisms of AI claims are thoroughly thought > through, with a rigor that a potential critic of his views would > do well to emulate. He has done AI great service by forcing > practitioners to be more self-critical. AAAI should award him > distinguished membership! Baloney. His views show a total lack of understanding of science, together with an inability to perform useful work relating to science. For example, in his recent article, he recounts an "experiment" he conducted to show that chessplayers do not use reasoning very much, but just play instinctively. This experiment consisted of an International Master playing against a weaker player. The IM was forced to add a sequence of numbers while playing, thus supposedly occupying his reasoning capability. The IM won anyway, thus supposedly showing that chess is not primarily a reasoning venture, or more precisely, that the difference between being a master and just very good is not due to superior reasoning. But wait a minute! How does this qualify as an experiment? Where is the control group? Did he have the IM play a number of players, sometimes having to add, sometimes not, and compare their results? NO. Did he vary the distracting task, in case addition was not demanding enough? NO. In short, this experiment means nothing, since the IM may well have played worse than he would have without having to add, but won anyway. This type of "evidence" is constantly cited by Dreyfus to support his views, but it's meaningless, due to his inability to perform good work. Also, he remarks that he and his brother have both failed to improve to a master level in chess, and somehow uses this to support his views, too! His basic argument is that if reasoning is so important, then he should be able to make master, implying that he is a good reasoner! It obviously has never occurred to him to ask someone who is a master if reasoning is important to him. I am a USCF master, and can guarantee that improving my reasoning capability has raised my rating (over 300 points in the last few years). It seems arrogant for him to reach conclusions about fields in which he is not accomplished. This applies to both chess and AI. Paul Benjamin
bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) (02/17/86)
>For example, in his recent article, he recounts an "experiment" >he conducted to show that chessplayers do not use reasoning very >much, but just play instinctively. This experiment consisted of >an International Master playing against a weaker player. The IM >was forced to add a sequence of numbers while playing, thus >supposedly occupying his reasoning capability. The IM won anyway I just repeated this experiment and I think he is right. I forced my SUN to add sequences of numbers while playing chess with me and I lost. Here, do it yourself: main() { int i,j; for(;;) for(i=j=0; i < 10000 ; i++) j += i ; } save this in file foo.c, compile with 'cc foo.c' and say: a.out & (runs it in the background) chesstool it slows it down only a tad, barely noticeable, but I still keep losing! AMAZING! my computer is human! -Barry Shein, Boston University
ladkin@kestrel.ARPA (Peter Ladkin) (02/19/86)
(ladkin on Dreyfus) > > He is also a professional philosopher, holding a chair at > > U.C. Berkeley. His criticisms of AI claims are thoroughly thought > > through, with a rigor that a potential critic of his views would > > do well to emulate. He has done AI great service by forcing > > practitioners to be more self-critical. AAAI should award him > > distinguished membership! (benjamin) > Baloney. > [comments on Dreyfus on chess .....] > It seems arrogant > for him to reach conclusions about fields in which he is not > accomplished. This applies to both chess and AI. Before you cry *baloney*, how about addressing the issue? As I pointed out, but you deleted, his major argument is that there are some areas of human experience related to intelligence which do not appear amenable to machine mimicry. Do you (or anyone) think that this statement is obviously false? (Negate it and see if that sounds right). People reach (good and bad) conclusions about fields in which they are not accomplished all the time. That's how AI got started, and that's how computers got invented. Why is it that people get so heated about criticism of AI that they stoop to name-calling rather than addressing the points made? (That question has probably also been asked by Dreyfus). Peter Ladkin
dpb@philabs.UUCP (Paul Benjamin) (02/20/86)
> (ladkin on Dreyfus) > > > He is also a professional philosopher, holding a chair at > > > U.C. Berkeley. His criticisms of AI claims are thoroughly thought > > > through, with a rigor that a potential critic of his views would > > > do well to emulate. He has done AI great service by forcing > > > practitioners to be more self-critical. AAAI should award him > > > distinguished membership! > (benjamin) > > Baloney. > > [comments on Dreyfus on chess .....] > > It seems arrogant > > for him to reach conclusions about fields in which he is not > > accomplished. This applies to both chess and AI. > > Before you cry *baloney*, how about addressing the issue? > As I pointed out, but you deleted, his major argument is that > there are some areas of human experience related to intelligence > which do not appear amenable to machine mimicry. > Do you (or anyone) think that this statement is obviously false? > (Negate it and see if that sounds right). > > Why is it that people get so heated about criticism of AI that > they stoop to name-calling rather than addressing the points made? > (That question has probably also been asked by Dreyfus). > > Peter Ladkin I DID address the issue. I deleted your reference because reproducing entire postings leads to extremely large postings. But I am addressing his argument about areas of human experience which supposedly will never be amenable to machine implementation. My whole point, which I thought was rather obvious, is that he conjures up examples which are poorly thought out, and experiments which are poorly executed. Thus, his entire analysis is worthless to any investigators in the field. I would welcome any analysis which would point out areas which I should not waste time investigating. I receive this sort of input occasionally, in the form of "it is better to investigate this than that, for this reason" and this is very helpful. I certainly don't love wasting time looking at dead ends. If Dreyfus' work were carefully constructed, it could be very valuable. But all I see when I read his stuff is vague hypotheses, backed up with bad research. So I am not calling him names. I am characterizing his research, and therefore AM addressing the issue. Paul Benjamin
olaf@ihwpt.UUCP (olaf henjum) (02/20/86)
Is there any other kind of "lover of wisdom" than a "self-styled" one?
-- Olaf Henjum (ihnp4!ihwpt!olaf)
(and, of course, my opinions are strictly my own ...)bsmith@uiucdcsp.CS.UIUC.EDU (03/03/86)
William James once wrote that all great theories go through three distinct stages: first, everyone claims the theory is simply wrong, and not worth taking seriously. Second, people start saying that, maybe it's true, but it's trivial. And third, people are heard to say that not only is it true and important, but they thought of it first. Here at the University of Illinois, it seems to be de rigeur to laugh and deride Dreyfuss whenever his name comes up. I am convinced the majority of these people have never read any of Dreyfuss' work--however, this is unimportant to them (clearly I don't mean everyone here). There are also those who spend a great deal of time and effort rejecting everything Dreyfuss says. For example, recently Dr. Buchanan (of Stanford) gave a lecture here. He purported to be answering Dreyfuss, but in the great majority of cases agreed with him (always saying something like, "Well, maybe it's true, but who cares?"). It seems to me that, if Dreyfuss is so unimportant, it is very strange indeed that so many people get so offended by everything he says and does. Perhaps AI researchers ought to be less sensitive and start encouraging this sort of interdisciplinary activity. Perhaps then AI will move forward and finally live up to its promise. Barry Smith