larry@JPL-VLSI.ARPA (02/08/86)
From: larry@Jpl-VLSI.ARPA I haven't read the Tech Review article; perhaps I shall just to see how different will be my interpretation of it from the opinions heard here. The discussion has made me want to offer some ideas of my own. What we lump under AI is several different fields of research with often very different if not contradictory approaches. As a dilletante in the AI field I perceive the following: COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY (a more restricted area than Cognitive Science) attempts to understand biologically based thinking using behavioral and psychiatric concepts and methods. This includes the effects emotional and social forces exert on cognition. This group is increasingly borrowing from the following groups. COGNITIVE SCIENCE attempts to broaden the study to include machine-based cognition. CS introduces heavy doses of metaphysics, logic, linguistics, and information theory. My impression is that this area is too heavily invested in symbol-processing research and could profitably spend more time on analog computation and associative memories. These may better model humans' near- instantaneous decision-making, which is more like doing a vector-sum than doing massively parallel logical inferences. PATTERN RECOGNITION, ROBOTICS, ETC. attempts to engineer cognition into machines. Many workers in this field have a strong "hard-science" background and a pragmatic approach; they often don't care whether they reproduce or whether they mimic biological cognition. EXPERT SYSTEMS, KNOWLEDGE ENGINEERING is more software engineering than hardware engineering. Logic, computer science, and database theory are strong here. Some of the simpler expert systems are imminently practical and have been around for decades--though "programmed" into trouble-shooting books and the like rather than a computer. (And while we're on this, most of what now passes for rule-based programming could be done in BASIC or assembly language, including self-modifying code, using fairly simple table-driven techniques.) And perhaps several more groups could be distinguished. Of course, there are plenty of exceptions to these categories, but humans do self-select into groups and distill ideas and techniques into a rudimentary group persona. If I were to characterize myself, I'd probably say that I'm less interested in AI than IA--Intelligence Amplification. I'm interested by attempts to create machine versions of human intelligence and I have little doubt that all the vaunted "mystical" abilities of humans will eventually be reproduced, including self-awareness. Some of these abilities may be much easier to reproduce than we suppose: intuition, for instance. I'm an artist in several media and use intuition routinely. I've spent a lot of time introspecting about what happens when I "solve" artistic problems, and I've learned how to "program" my undermind so that I can promise solutions with considerable reliability. I believe I could build an intuitive computer. But what fascinates me is the idea of building systems which combine the best capabilities of human and machine to overcome the limits of both. I think it's much more economical, practical, and probably even humane to, say, make a language-translation system that uses computers to do rapid, rough transla- tions of 99% of a text and uses human sensitivities and skills to polish and validate the translations. (Stated like that it sounds like two batch jobs with a pipe between them. My concept is an interactive system with both human and computer collaborating on the job, with the human doing continuous shaping and scheduling of the entire process.) Now I'll go back to being an interested by-stander for another six months! Larry @ JPL-VLSI.arpa