3 ms·

Considering the large and growing bank of research that highlights areas where the brain's output is flawed or plain wrong when compared to the consensus "optim

by duwease 13y ago

Considering the large and growing bank of research that highlights areas where the brain's output is flawed or plain wrong when compared to the consensus "optimal solution", I think I'm with the "AI establishment" as it's painted by this article. It doesn't seem self-evident to me that the inner workings of the human mind are the only or even optimal implementation of intelligence for every task. If anything, the human mind seems to me to be a particular algorithm that is flexible, but trades that flexibility for capability in certain problem areas. Using a transportation metaphor, it's like walking versus air travel. Walking is incredibly flexible when it comes to where you can go, but air travel is by far the optimal route to get from coast-to-coast, although you are limited to travelling between airstrips. I feel like focusing on the human brain as the "true" intelligence is like claiming that walking is the only true transportation, instead of focusing on optimal routes for each problem.

hharrison 13y ago
Maybe the article doesn't get it across, but the anti-establishment crowd doesn't think that doing things the "human way" is always the best solution. In fact, they acknowledge that it's often, even usually, not. Hofstadter does not want to replace (e.g.) GPS AI with human-style intelligence, or even more ridiculous, replace the AI that flies airplanes with one that gets bored and does crossword puzzles instead of paying attention. Instead he wants to understand human-style intelligence because that opens doors to tacking really interesting scientific/philosophical problems like personality, self, consciousness, autonomy, etc. In short, the camps have different goals. One is trying to solve problems optimally. The other is trying to understand what intelligence means, biologically. AI as a sub-discipline of Engineering, vs. AI as a sub-discipline of Cognitive Science, perhaps.
- csense 13y ago
  > replace the AI that flies airplanes with one that gets bored and does crossword puzzles This would be a great scenario for a sci-fi novel / movie. An AI that threatens the human race not by achieving sentience and attempting world domination, but by achieving sentience and playing Sudoku instead of doing its job...
discodave 13y ago
I agree with you except that I think you are on the other side.

by duwease 13y ago

hharrison 13y ago

Maybe the article doesn't get it across, but the anti-establishment crowd doesn't think that doing things the "human way" is always the best solution. In fact, they acknowledge that it's often, even usually, not. Hofstadter does not want to replace (e.g.) GPS AI with human-style intelligence, or even more ridiculous, replace the AI that flies airplanes with one that gets bored and does crossword puzzles instead of paying attention. Instead he wants to understand human-style intelligence because that opens doors to tacking really interesting scientific/philosophical problems like personality, self, consciousness, autonomy, etc. In short, the camps have different goals. One is trying to solve problems optimally. The other is trying to understand what intelligence means, biologically. AI as a sub-discipline of Engineering, vs. AI as a sub-discipline of Cognitive Science, perhaps.

csense 13y ago
> replace the AI that flies airplanes with one that gets bored and does crossword puzzles This would be a great scenario for a sci-fi novel / movie. An AI that threatens the human race not by achieving sentience and attempting world domination, but by achieving sentience and playing Sudoku instead of doing its job...

discodave 13y ago

I agree with you except that I think you are on the other side.