3 ms·

I disagree. Basic research in behavior analysis has shown that nonhuman animals can perform visual (and other sensory modalities) discrimination and categorizat

I disagree. Basic research in behavior analysis has shown that nonhuman animals can perform visual (and other sensory modalities) discrimination and categorization among a number of trained and untrained stimuli ([0] and [1] are just two examples). I don't think these APIs do anything that is uniquely human or "cognitive." Nonetheless, this API still has enormous value for developers and users. I'm not discounting that. UPDATE: 0: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1334394/pdf/jeabehav00221-0041.pdf http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1334394/pdf/jeab... 1: http://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/handle/123456789/20501/Delius%20Categorical.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y http://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/handle/123456789/20501...

daveguy 11y ago
Missing references [0] and [1].
- travjones 11y ago
  Oops, I forgot to add them at the end--updated. Thanks.
azakai 11y ago
Processing human language is definitely a human skill, and many of the image categorization tasks would be as well (while animals have great visual systems, they categorize differently than us, it's not clear if cats see "cars", for example). In any case, the word "cognitive" is used as in "cognitive science", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science
- travjones 11y ago
  I guess it's kind of a semantic argument. I stand corrected. It seems the culture accepts "cognitive" in AI according to the wikipedia link you provided. Although, I question the degree to which the use of "cognitive" in marketing materials contributed to this acceptance. On the topic of "processing," it's very difficult (sometimes impossible) to know what humans or nonhumans are doing covertly when they "process" stimuli. Thus, I'm not sure how you can determine that "they [animals] categorize differently than us." A dog that is trained to sit when his owner says, "sit" must be "processing human language" when the dog sits. Right? I know this is an oversimplified example, but I'm just making a point that calling things "cognitive" and referring to "processing" doesn't help explain what is really happening. Sometimes these terms obscure a description/explanation. Skinner [0] makes this point a lot better than me. [0]: http://carboneclinic.com/portal/conferences/files/IESCUM%20Dec%202014%20SENT/new%20readings/Operational.pdf http://carboneclinic.com/portal/conferences/files/IESCUM%20D...
  - pedrosorio 11y ago
    I think when it comes to cognitive ability of animals versus humans we are at the same stage as biology before Darwin - assuming hard boundaries that don't really exist.

daveguy 11y ago

Missing references [0] and [1].

travjones 11y ago
Oops, I forgot to add them at the end--updated. Thanks.

azakai 11y ago

Processing human language is definitely a human skill, and many of the image categorization tasks would be as well (while animals have great visual systems, they categorize differently than us, it's not clear if cats see "cars", for example). In any case, the word "cognitive" is used as in "cognitive science", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science

travjones 11y ago
I guess it's kind of a semantic argument. I stand corrected. It seems the culture accepts "cognitive" in AI according to the wikipedia link you provided. Although, I question the degree to which the use of "cognitive" in marketing materials contributed to this acceptance. On the topic of "processing," it's very difficult (sometimes impossible) to know what humans or nonhumans are doing covertly when they "process" stimuli. Thus, I'm not sure how you can determine that "they [animals] categorize differently than us." A dog that is trained to sit when his owner says, "sit" must be "processing human language" when the dog sits. Right? I know this is an oversimplified example, but I'm just making a point that calling things "cognitive" and referring to "processing" doesn't help explain what is really happening. Sometimes these terms obscure a description/explanation. Skinner [0] makes this point a lot better than me. [0]: http://carboneclinic.com/portal/conferences/files/IESCUM%20Dec%202014%20SENT/new%20readings/Operational.pdf http://carboneclinic.com/portal/conferences/files/IESCUM%20D...
- pedrosorio 11y ago
  I think when it comes to cognitive ability of animals versus humans we are at the same stage as biology before Darwin - assuming hard boundaries that don't really exist.