5 ms·

Disappointed to not see any philosophy of science subjects in here, whilst it is really the cornerstone of “thinking about AI”. Yes ethics is highly relevant, b

Disappointed to not see any philosophy of science subjects in here, whilst it is really the cornerstone of “thinking about AI”. Yes ethics is highly relevant, but I think it is more important for AI / ML practitioners to be able to reason about the foundations, methodology, and limitations of AI from the perspective of human knowing, what constitutes intelligence, scientific reductionism etc. I suppose US schools are more focused on the first order skills (how to do it) instead of second order (what and why). There are huge philosophical implications of the rise of AI outside of “just ethics”, which we don’t teach students enough. Knowledge vs information vs data, auto- vs allopoiesis, the structure of scientific revolutions, different forms of consciousness etc. In short, programmers and data scientists need to spend more time thinking about thinking when they are at school!

roymurdock 8y ago
Show me a system that can even come close to approximating “thinking” and remembering/synthesizing info on any of the deeper levels you discussed and I’ll agree. We need to improve the actual technology first before we shape it in an ethical or philosophical way. Otherwise AI will continue to be ever more fine tuned linear regressions from camera feeds stacked and trained into “smart” neural networks.
- Qasaur 8y ago
  >We need to improve the actual technology first before we shape it in an ethical or philosophical way. I disagree. How can we even begin to design or improve a system that emulates intelligence if we do not even know what it means to be intelligent?
  - tome 8y ago
    "We" (in aggregate) are not trying to design a system that emulates intelligence. "We" are trying to solve problems, make money, and accumulate power by using techniques that are only expediently described as "intelligent" or "learning".
    - xikrib 8y ago
      Wow that's pretty sad
thadk 8y ago
Cognitive science warns away from a heavy dependence on behavioralist/probabilistic approaches in many cases. That CogSci special requirement seems to be more reasonable one aimed to guide thinking about past AI and philosophical struggles than a generic philosophy class for an undergraduate student. Of course, there does seem to be room for a few philosophy electives here should the student enjoy it.
- thadk 8y ago
  I'm now curious what typical examples of course titles would be in the "Philosophy of Science" area outside the US though? Here is an example of Cognitive Science's preferred way of thinking about AI: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/11/noam-chomsky-on-where-artificial-intelligence-went-wrong/261637/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/11/noam-...
ptd 8y ago
Any resources you would recommend to learn more about the philosophy behind AI/ML?
justinhj 8y ago
I did a BSc in AI in the 90s and we had courses on the Philosophy of Science and another on the Philosophy of consciousness. While they were both interesting, neither has been relevant to my real world work in the last 25 years.

roymurdock 8y ago

Show me a system that can even come close to approximating “thinking” and remembering/synthesizing info on any of the deeper levels you discussed and I’ll agree. We need to improve the actual technology first before we shape it in an ethical or philosophical way. Otherwise AI will continue to be ever more fine tuned linear regressions from camera feeds stacked and trained into “smart” neural networks.

Qasaur 8y ago
>We need to improve the actual technology first before we shape it in an ethical or philosophical way. I disagree. How can we even begin to design or improve a system that emulates intelligence if we do not even know what it means to be intelligent?
- tome 8y ago
  "We" (in aggregate) are not trying to design a system that emulates intelligence. "We" are trying to solve problems, make money, and accumulate power by using techniques that are only expediently described as "intelligent" or "learning".
  - xikrib 8y ago
    Wow that's pretty sad

thadk 8y ago

Cognitive science warns away from a heavy dependence on behavioralist/probabilistic approaches in many cases. That CogSci special requirement seems to be more reasonable one aimed to guide thinking about past AI and philosophical struggles than a generic philosophy class for an undergraduate student. Of course, there does seem to be room for a few philosophy electives here should the student enjoy it.

thadk 8y ago
I'm now curious what typical examples of course titles would be in the "Philosophy of Science" area outside the US though? Here is an example of Cognitive Science's preferred way of thinking about AI: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/11/noam-chomsky-on-where-artificial-intelligence-went-wrong/261637/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/11/noam-...

ptd 8y ago

Any resources you would recommend to learn more about the philosophy behind AI/ML?

justinhj 8y ago

I did a BSc in AI in the 90s and we had courses on the Philosophy of Science and another on the Philosophy of consciousness. While they were both interesting, neither has been relevant to my real world work in the last 25 years.