3 ms·
Watson is a great example of the graduation evolution of weak AI. It succeeds beautifully in its narrowly defined goals, but is still just a glorified statistic
by slacka 14y ago
Watson is a great example of the graduation evolution of weak AI. It succeeds beautifully in its narrowly defined goals, but is still just a glorified statistical search engine. It will not revolutionize AI anymore than Deep Blue did with Chess or the speech recognition software of the 90s did.
To quote Jeff Halwkings "As Searle showed with the Chinese Room, behavioral equivalence is not enough. Since intelligence is an internal property of a brain, we have to look inside the brain to understand what intelligence is. As we'll soon see, there is an underlying elegance of great power, one that surpasses our best computers, waiting to be extracted from these neural circuits. ...
For half a century we've been bringing the full force of our species' considerable cleverness to trying to program intelligence into computers. In the process we've come up with word processors, databases, video games, the Internet, mobile phones, and convincing computer-animated dinosaurs. But intelligent machines still aren't anywhere in the picture. To succeed, we will need to crib heavily from nature's engine of intelligence, the neocortex. We have to extract intelligence from within the brain. No other road will get us there. "
I'd put my money on Deep Neural Networks or Hawkings' Hierarchical Temporal Memory approach to "revolutionize AI".
- dbaupp 14y agoSearle didn't show anything of the sort. There have been many responses to it, such as pointing out that it is the whole system, rather than the man, that understands Chinese, or that it is begging the question in terms of the uniqueness of human intelligence. E.g. a fun response which reverses it to be AI talking about humans http://lesswrong.com/lw/ghj/searles_cobol_room/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/ghj/searles_cobol_room/
- s_baby 14y agoHis thought experiments give a good illustration of the "hard problem" of consciousness. A) It's not rationally possible to explain qualia in terms of quantitative phenomena. We can draw correlations using empiricism but they are ontologies fundamentally inconsistent with one another. B) Intelligence does not imply experience. One of the biggest problems here is conflation of the two. An amoeba has intelligence with basic consciousness of its surroundings. That does not mean it has experiences.