3 ms·
However sophisticated it gets, it ultimately boils down to a notion that the exitence of A is somehow responsible for the existence of B.
by n4r9 7y ago
However sophisticated it gets, it ultimately boils down to a notion that the exitence of A is somehow responsible for the existence of B.
- tabtab 7y agoLet's break it down into sub-categories: 1. There is a time-based relationship between A and B: they tend to happen close together in time 2. There is a time-based relationship between A and B such that B often happens shortly after A. 3. When I (or bot) creates condition A, then B usually happens. 4. When I (or bot) creates condition A, then B usually does not happen. 5. Science or simulations explain how A triggers B, if #2 is observed. A bot can be programmed to conclude there is a potential causal relationship if #2 happens. If not problematic, the bot can then do experiments to see whether #3 or #4 is the case. If #3 happens, the bot can label the relationship as "likely causal". If #4, label it "probably not causal, but puzzling". #5 would probably be needed to conclude "most likely causal", and is probably an unrealistic expectation for the first generation of "common sense" AI, although they may have a simple physics simulator built in. The highest "causal" score would be #2, #3, and #5 all true.
- n4r9 7y agoI think Hume might respond that #5 is somewhat self-referential or recursive, since science effectively reduces to a set of causal principles.