3 ms·

> What do we want? Make some scifi become real? No, we just want helpful machines. It depends. It's common to split AI research into 4 types, by asking 2 quest

> What do we want? Make some scifi become real? No, we just want helpful machines. It depends. It's common to split AI research into 4 types, by asking 2 questions: 1) Do you care about the end result or the mechanism/approach being taken? 2) Do you care about mimicking humans or "doing the right thing"? Hence the 4 categories are: A) Systems that think like humans (mimicking the approach taken by humans) B) Systems that think rationally (using the "right" approach) C) Systems that act like humans (mimicking human results) D) Systems that act rationally (achieving the "right" result) For example, this breakdown appears in section 1.1 "What is AI?" in "AI A Modern Approach", which I happen to have on my desk. Whilst not perfect, identifying which of these categories some approach/research fits into can avoid a lot of well-trodden philosophical debates which can easily derail any discussion about said approach/research. In this case, you seem to be in the "act rationally" camp. That's fine, but it's unfair to dismiss the goals of other researchers who fit into other categories. For example, those trying to find out how the human mind is structured; what assistance and interventions could help disabled people; etc. In those cases, a data-crunching ear implant might be a useful commodity to have, in the same way that AI researchers probably have mobile phones, but wouldn't offer any insight into the problem.

sgt101 11y ago
I think the friction is because of the different views of each camp about what is important for members of the other camps to do! Like, I would put myself in c & d but I think that D people often ignore important things like noise and robustness to starting conditions and frankly run their bloody deep network 100000 times and choose the best outcome for their paper. It's really striking when someone like Lake and Tenenbaum produce a paper where they stick big sharp pins in any mithering critique that's anyone would have. Hats off and all that! But it's striking and it shouldn't be, it should be the standard.
gbog 11y ago
"Like human" and "rationally" and "think" and even "act" are too human to describe robots. That's anthropomorphic. Robots will be like robots, act robotically, they will compute, operate, etc. Anthropomorphism is a childish mistake when studying animals, i'd say it's even more so when studying robots.
- chriswarbo 11y ago
  > "Like human" and "rationally" and "think" and even "act" are too human to describe robots. I wasn't describing robots; I was describing some of the goals, approaches and ideas of AI researchers, who are very much human. Analogously, it makes sense to say that a pure mathematician tries to find pleasing, intriguing, beautiful theorems; yet the theorems themselves don't experience pleasure, intrigue or beauty.

sgt101 11y ago

I think the friction is because of the different views of each camp about what is important for members of the other camps to do! Like, I would put myself in c & d but I think that D people often ignore important things like noise and robustness to starting conditions and frankly run their bloody deep network 100000 times and choose the best outcome for their paper. It's really striking when someone like Lake and Tenenbaum produce a paper where they stick big sharp pins in any mithering critique that's anyone would have. Hats off and all that! But it's striking and it shouldn't be, it should be the standard.

gbog 11y ago

"Like human" and "rationally" and "think" and even "act" are too human to describe robots. That's anthropomorphic. Robots will be like robots, act robotically, they will compute, operate, etc. Anthropomorphism is a childish mistake when studying animals, i'd say it's even more so when studying robots.

chriswarbo 11y ago
> "Like human" and "rationally" and "think" and even "act" are too human to describe robots. I wasn't describing robots; I was describing some of the goals, approaches and ideas of AI researchers, who are very much human. Analogously, it makes sense to say that a pure mathematician tries to find pleasing, intriguing, beautiful theorems; yet the theorems themselves don't experience pleasure, intrigue or beauty.