[comp.ai.digest] Success/Future of AI

larry@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV (11/06/87)

                 NATURAL ENTITIES AS PROTOTYPES

Much of the confusion about the nature of intelligence seems to 
be the result of dealing with it at abstraction levels that are 
too low.

At a low level of detail an aircraft is obviously drastically 
different from a bird, leading to the conclusion that a study of 
birds has no relevance to aeronautical science.  At a higher 
level the relevance becomes obvious: air-flow over the chord of 
birds' and aircrafts' wings produces lift in exactly the same 
way.  Understanding this process was crucial to properly 
designing the first aircrafts' wings.

Once the basic form+function was understood engineers could 
produce articial variations that surpassed those found in 
nature--though with numerous trade-offs.  Construction and repair 
of artifical wings, for instance, are much more labor- and 
capital-intensive.

Understanding birds' wings helped in other ways.  Analytically 
separating the lift and propulsion functions of wings allowed us 
to create jet aircraft; combining them in creative ways gave us 
rocket-ships (where propulsion IS lift) and helicopters.

                   THE NATURE OF INTELLIGENCE

The understanding of intelligence is less advanced than that of 
flight, but some progress HAS been made.  The quotes from Robert 
Frost illuminate the basic nature of intelligence: creation, 
exploration, and manipulation within an entity of a model of the 
Universe.  He labels this model and its parts "metaphor."  I 
prefer "analog."

The mechanism that holds the analog we call memory.  Though low-
level details (HOW memory works) are important, it is much more 
important to first understand WHAT memory does.  For instance, 
there is a lot of evidence that there are several kinds of 
memory, describable along several dimensions.  One dimension, 
obviously, is time.

This has a number of consequences that have nothing to do with, 
for instance, the fact that deci-second visual memory works via 
interactions of photons with visual purple.  Eyes that used a 
different storage mechanism but had the same black-box 
characteristics (latency, bandwidth, communication protocol, 
etc.) would present the same image to their owner.

One consequence of the time dimension of human memory is that 
memory decays in certain ways.  Conventionally memory units that 
do not forget are considered good, yet forgetting is as important 
as retention.  Forgetting emphasizes the important by hiding the 
unimportant; it supports generalization because essential 
similarities are not obscured by inessential differences.

                MECHANICAL NATURE OF INTELLIGENCE

There have been other real advances in scientifically understand-
ing intelligence, but I believe the above is enough to convince 
the convincable.  As to whether human intelligence is 
mechanical--this depends on one's perception of machines.  When 
the word is used as an insult it usually calls up last-century 
paradigms: the steam engine and other rigid, simple machines.  I 
prefer to think of the human hand, which can be soft and warm, or 
the heart, which is a marvel of reliability and adaptibility.

Scientific models of the mind can (and to be accurate, must) use 
the more modern "warmware" paradigm rather than the idiotic hand-
calc simplicity of Behaviorism.  One example is my memory-mask 
model of creativity (discussed here a year ago).

                      ART AND INTELLIGENCE

The previous comments have (I perhaps naively believe) a direct  
relevance to the near-future of AI.  That can't be said of this
last section but I can't resist adding it.  Though professionally
a software engineer, I consider myself primarily an artist (in   
fiction-writing and a visual media).  This inside view and my  
studies has convinced me over the years that art and cognition
are much closer than is widely recognized.

For one thing, art is as pervasive in human lives as air--though 
this may not be obvious to those who think of haut cultur when 
when they see/hear the word.  Think of all the people in this 
country who take a boombox/Walkman/stereo with them wherever they 
stroll/jog/drive.  True, the sound-maker often satisfies because 
it gives an illusion of companionship, but it is more often 
simply hedonically satisfying--though their "music" may sound 
like audio-ordure to others.  Think of all the doodling people 
do, the small artworks they make (pastries, knitting, sand-
castles, Christmas trees, candy-striped Camaros), the photos 
and advertising posters they tape to walls.

Art enhances our survival and evolution as a species, partly 
because it is a source of pleasure that gives us another reason 
for living.  It also has intellectual elements.  Poetic rules are 
mnemonic enhancers, as all know who survived high-school English, 
though nowadays these rules most often are used in prose and so 
reflexively they aren't recognized even by their users.  

Artistic rules are also cognitive enhancers.  One way they do 
this is with a careful balance of predictibility and surprise; 
regularity decreases the amount of attention needed to remember 
and process data, discontinuities shock us enough to keep us 
alert.  Breaks can also     focus attention     where an artist 
desires.
                       Larry @ jpl-vlsi