The Catholic Church probably does not understand what intelligence is. Neither do the people who are making AI—not as a science. Making intelligence (so-calle

The Catholic Church probably does not understand what intelligence is. Neither do the people who are making AI—not as a science. Making intelligence (so-called or real) is different from understanding it. Which relates back to Chomsky’s remarks that prompted the Norvig response. > > I mean actually you could do physics this way, instead of studying things like balls rolling down frictionless planes, which can't happen in nature, if you took a ton of video tapes of what's happening outside my office window, let's say, you know, leaves flying and various things, and you did an extensive analysis of them, you would get some kind of prediction of what's likely to happen next, certainly way better than anybody in the physics department could do. Well that's a notion of success which is I think novel, I don't know of anything like it in the history of science. and in- in those terms you get some kind of successes, and if you look at the literature in the field, a lot of these papers are listed as successes. And when you look at them carefully, they're successes in this particular sense, and not the sense that science has ever been interested in. But it does give you ways of approximating unanalyzed data, you know analysis of ((a)) corpus and so on and so forth. I don't know of any other cases, frankly. so there are successes where things are integrated with some of the properties of language, but I know of- ((the sec-)) know of none in which they're not. https://norvig.com/chomsky.html https://norvig.com/chomsky.html