saal@sfsup.UUCP (S.Saal) (03/31/88)
I think the pessimism about AI is a bit more subtle. Whenever something is still only vaguely understood, it is considered a part of AI. Once we start understanding the `what,' `how,' and (sometimes) `why' we no longer consider it a part of AI. For example, all robotics used to be part of AI. Now robotics is a field unto itself and only the more difficult aspects (certain manipoulations, object recognition, etc) are within AI anymore. Similarly so for expert systems. It used to be that ES were entirely within the purview of AI. That was when the AI folks had no real idea how to do ESs and were trying all sorts of methods. Now they understand them and two things have happened: expert systems are an independant branch of computer science and people have found that they no longer need to rely on the (advanced) AI type languages (lisp, etc) to get the job done. Ironically, this makes AI a field that must make itself obsolete. As more areas become understood, they will break off and become their own field. If not for finding new areas, AI would run out of things for it to address. Does this mean it isn't worth while to study AI? Certainly not. If for no other reason than AI is the think tank, problem _finder_ of computer science. So what if no problem in AI itself is ever solved? Many problems that used to be in AI have been, or are well on their way to being, solved. Yes, the costs are high, and it may not look as though much is actually coming out of AI research except for more questions, but asking the questions and lookling for the answers in the way that AI does, is a valid and useful approach. -- Sam Saal ..!attunix!saal Vayiphtach HaShem et Peah HaAtone
boris@hawaii.mit.edu (Boris N Goldowsky) (04/03/88)
In article <2979@sfsup.UUCP> saal@sfsup.UUCP (S.Saal) writes:
Ironically, this makes AI a field that must make itself obsolete.
As more areas become understood, they will break off and become
their own field. If not for finding new areas, AI would run out
of things for it to address.
Isn't that true of all sciences, though? If something is understood,
then you don't need to study it anymore.
I realize this is oversimplifying your point, so let me be more
precise. If you are doing some research and come up with results that
are useful, people will start using those results for their own
purposes. If the results are central to your field, you will also
keep expanding on them and so forth. But if they are not really of
central interest, the only people who will keep them alive are these
others... and if, as in the case of robotics, they are really useful
results they will be very visibly and profitably kept alive. But I
think this can really happen in any field, and in no way makes AI
"obsolete."
Isn't finding new areas what science is all about?
Bng
--
Boris Goldowsky boris@athena.mit.edu or @adam.pika.mit.edu
%athena@eddie.UUCP
@69 Chestnut St.Cambridge.MA.02139
@6983.492.(617)boris@hawaii.mit.edu (Boris N Goldowsky) (04/08/88)
In article <28619@aero.ARPA> srt@aero.ARPA (Scott R. Turner) writes:
Eventually we'll build a computer that can pass the Turing Test and
people will still be saying "That's not intelligence, that's just a
machine."
-- Scott Turner
This may be true, but at the same time the notion that a machine could
never think is slowly being eroded away. Perhaps by the time such a
"Turing Machine"* could be built, "just a machine" will no longer
imply non-intelligence, because they'll be too many semiinteligent
machines around.
But I think it is a good point that every time we do begin to understand
some subdomain of intelligence, it becomes clear that there is much
more left to be understood...
->Boris G.
(*sorry.)
--
Boris Goldowsky boris@athena.mit.edu or @adam.pika.mit.edu
%athena@eddie.UUCP
@69 Chestnut St.Cambridge.MA.02139
@6983.492.(617)srt@aero.ARPA (Scott R. Turner) (04/08/88)
I think the important point is that as soon as AI figures something out, it is not only no longer considered to be AI, it is also no longer considered to be intelligence. Expert systems is a good example. The early theory was, let's try and build programs like experts, and that will give us some idea of why those experts are intelligent. Now a days, people say "expert systems - oh, that's just rule application." There's some truth to that viewpoint - I don't think expert systems has a lot to say about intelligence - but it's a bad trap to fall into. Eventually we'll build a computer that can pass the Turing Test and people will still be saying "That's not intelligence, that's just a machine." -- Scott Turner
cdfk@otter.hple.hp.com (Caroline Knight) (04/08/88)
The Turing Test is hardly adequate - I'm surprised that people still bring it up - indeed it is exactly the way in which people's expectations change with what they have already seen on a computer which makes this a test with continuously changing criteria. For instance, take someone who has never heard of computers and show them any competent game and the technically unsophisticated may well believe the machine is playing intelligently (I have trouble with my computer beating me at Scrabble) but those who have become familiar with such phenomena "know better" - its "just programmed". The day when we have won is the inverse of the Turing Test - someone will say this has to be a human not a computer - a computer couldn't have made such a crass mistake - but then maybe the computer just wanted to win and looked like a human... I realise that this sounds a little flippant but I think that there is a serious point in it - I rely on your abilities as intelligent readers to read past my own crassness and understand my point. Caroline Knight
mrspock@hubcap.UUCP (Steve Benz) (04/11/88)
From article <2070012@otter.hple.hp.com>, by cdfk@otter.hple.hp.com (Caroline Knight): > The Turing Test is hardly adequate - I'm surprised that people > still bring it up... > > The day when we have won is the inverse of the Turing Test - someone > will say this has to be a human not a computer - a computer > couldn't have made such a crass mistake... > > ...Caroline Knight Isn't this exactly the Turing test (rather than the inverse?) A computer being just as human as a human? Well, either way, the point is taken. In fact, I agree with it. I think that in order for a machine to be convincing as a human, it would need to have the bad qualities of a human as well as the good ones, i.e. it would have to be occasionally stupid, arrogant, ignorant, etc.&soforth. So, who needs that? Who is going to sit down and (intentionally) write a program that has the capacity to be stupid, arrogant, or ignorant? I think the goal of AI is somewhat askew of the Turing test. If a rational human develops an intelligent computer, it will almost certainly have a personality quite distinct from any human. - Steve mrspock@hubcap.clemson.edu ...!gatech!hubcap!mrspock
RLWALD@pucc.Princeton.EDU (Robert Wald) (04/12/88)
In article <1348@hubcap.UUCP>, mrspock@hubcap.UUCP (Steve Benz) writes: > Isn't this exactly the Turing test (rather than the inverse?) >A computer being just as human as a human? Well, either way, >the point is taken. > > In fact, I agree with it. I think that in order for a machine to be >convincing as a human, it would need to have the bad qualities of a human >as well as the good ones, i.e. it would have to be occasionally stupid, >arrogant, ignorant, etc.&soforth. > > So, who needs that? Who is going to sit down and (intentionally) >write a program that has the capacity to be stupid, arrogant, or ignorant? I think that you are missing the point. Its because you're using charged words to describe humans. Ignorant: Well, I would certainly expect an AI to be ignorant of things or combinations of things it hasn't been told about. Stupid: People are stupid either because they don't have proper procedures to deal with information, or because they are ignorant of the real meaning of the information they do possess and thus use it wrongly. I don't see any practical computer having some method of always using the right procedure, and I've already said that I think it would be ignorant of certain things. People think and operate by using a lot of heuristics on an incredible amount of information. So much that it is probably hopeless to develop perfect algorithms, even with a very fast computer. So i think that computers will have to use these heuristics also. Eventually, we may develop methods that are more powerful and reliable than humans. Computers are not subject to the hardware limitations of the brain. But meanwhile I don't think that what you have mentioned are 'bad' qualities of the brain, nor unapplicable to computers. Arrogance: It is unlikely that people will attempt to give computers emotions for some time. On the other hand, I try not (perhaps failing at times) to be arrogant or nasty. But as far as the turing test is concerned, a computer which can parse real language could conceivably parse for emotional content and be programmed to respond. There may even be some application for this, so it may be done. The only application for simulating arrogance production might be if you are really trying to fool workers into thinking their boss is a human, or at least trying to make them forget it is a computer. I'm not really that concerned with arrogance, but I think that an AI could be very 'stupid' and 'ignorant'. Not ones that deal with limited domains, but ones that are going to operate in the real world. -Rob Wald Bitnet: RLWALD@PUCC.BITNET Uucp: {ihnp4|allegra}!psuvax1!PUCC.BITNET!RLWALD Arpa: RLWALD@PUCC.Princeton.Edu "Why are they all trying to kill me?" "They don't realize that you're already dead." -The Prisoner
channic@uiucdcsm.cs.uiuc.edu (04/13/88)
In article <1348@hubcap.UUCP>, mrspock@hubcap.UUCP (Steve Benz) writes: > In fact, I agree with it. I think that in order for a machine to be >convincing as a human, it would need to have the bad qualities of a human >as well as the good ones, i.e. it would have to be occasionally stupid, >arrogant, ignorant, etc.&soforth. > > So, who needs that? Who is going to sit down and (intentionally) >write a program that has the capacity to be stupid, arrogant, or ignorant? Another way of expressing the apparent necessity for bad qualities "for a machine to be convincing as a human" is to say that free will is fundamental to human intelligence. I believe this is why the reaction to any "breakthrough" in intelligent machine behavior is always "but its not REALLY intelligent, it was just programmed to do that." Choosing among alternative problem solutions is an entirely different matter than justifying or explaining an apparently intelligent solution. In complex problems of politics, economics, computer science, and I would even venture to say physics, there are no right or wrong answers, only opinions (which are choices) which are judged as such on the basis of creativity and how much it agrees with the choices of those considered expert in the field. I think AI by and large ignores the issue of free will as well as other long standing philoshical problems (such as the mind/brain problem) which lie at the crux of developing machine intelligence. Of course there is not much grant money available for addressing old philosphy. This view are jaded, I admit, but five years of experience in the field has led me to believe that AI is not the endeavor to make machines that think, but rather the endeavor to make people think that machines can think. tom channic uiucdcs.uiuc.dcs.edu {ihnp4|decvax}!pur-ee!uiucdcs!channic