4 ms·

Putting aside all philosophical questions, I do want to dispute that we're wasting money on AI. Even if you believe human-level artificial intelligence is not a

by ehsanu1 13y ago

Putting aside all philosophical questions, I do want to dispute that we're wasting money on AI. Even if you believe human-level artificial intelligence is not achievable with computers, you can't deny that AI so far has already paid huge dividends, and will continue to pay off even more in the future. Examples abound, such as self-driving cars, medical diagnosis, and automating more and more forms of busy-work that humans currently have to do. So I don't really see how it's a waste at all.

yc-kjh 13y ago
It is obviously not a waste when we use computers to do syntax. Chess-playing computers can now beat the best international grandmasters; this is an example of computers doing syntax. For every task which is syntax only, it is a fantastic idea to make computers do the work, and relieve humans from the drudgery. I'm all in favor of that. But for any task which requires semantics -- real human intelligence -- it is foolish to attempt to replace humans. It cannot be done. What is required is the wisdom to know the difference between the two.
- gphilip 13y ago
  > But for any task which requires semantics -- real human intelligence -- it is foolish to attempt to replace humans. It cannot be done. Well we don't know this for sure, do we? "It's an open empirical question whether there are actual deterministic physical processes that, in the long run, elude simulation by a Turing machine; furthermore, ... it is an open empirical question whether any such processes are involved in the working of the human brain." [1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%E2%80%93Turing_thesis#Philosophical_implications http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%E2%80%93Turing_thesis#Ph...
  - yc-kjh 13y ago
    If you accept materialism as true, then by the Church-Turing hypothesis it is a necessary and foregone conclusion that computers will achieve full human intelligence, and even more, because they do not get tired and are not distracted. But the hypothesis of materialism is what is in question here, both by my citation of the difference between syntax and semantics, and the obvious (to anybody who understands what a computer is and does) conclusion that computers do only syntax, while humans clearly do semantics also, and also by Searle's and Nagle's work. I think that the evidence (which most people want to deny) is very clear that materialism is false. Most people deal with this evidence by ignoring it, or by denying it exists in the first place. They never address it. You can prove me wrong. You can prove that materialism is correct. Just produce a real AI which is every bit as intelligent and capable as a human. Produce an AI which can really do semantics. Produce an AI which clearly convinces everybody that it is really intelligent in the way humans are, without any parlor tricks (like modelling an idiot savant). It is much harder to prove that materialism is false, but that is what Nagle has done in his recent book. Have you read it? If he has not convinced you, please critique his arguments.
    - gphilip 13y ago
      I am not an expert in whatever field "materialism" belongs, so I will defer to accepted knowledge (or lack thereof) as professed by layperson-friendly sources such as Wikipedia. Till the time I really get interested in these fine differences. May I point out that the tone you use in these discussions is not, in general, of a nature which encourages a lay person to even read what you say, much less to follow up on your ideas? People really do not like being looked down upon, and your writing comes across as quite condescending (among other things). Here are a couple of things from the parent comment to illustrate this: 1. "the obvious (to anybody who understands what a computer is and does) conclusion that computers do only syntax, while ..." Do you see what's wrong with a statement of the form "What I want to prove is obvious to anyone who knows even a little something", and how it might come across as (i) unacceptable hand-waving even in a research paper in the relevant field, and (ii) highly condescending in public discourse? 2. The whole paragraph starting with "You can prove me wrong. ..." comes across as childish. Who am I, anyway, and why should I go to all that trouble to prove you wrong, even if I was somehow capable of doing it? As an analogy, suppose in a discussion on life outside earth I quote current expert consensus as found on Wikipedia as saying that there is potentially life on Europa [1]. And someone retorts saying "No. Prove me wrong. Just build a spaceship which can go bring some life from Europa." Do you see something wrong with such a response? In particular, do you see something wrong with the use of the word "just" here? 3. Your repeated insistence that everyone should read some work and critique it before countering your arguments comes across as obnoxious behaviour. 4. A minor point: it is Nagel, not Nagle. I mention this because I see you making the same mistake in multiple comments. You seem to have interesting points to make. It would be good if you make them in a way which people find enjoyable to read. [1] I made this up on the spot. I don't know what the current expert consensus is, so check Wikipedia before taking this as true :). (Edit: Formatting)
      - yc-kjh 13y ago
        Thank you for correcting me on Nagel's name. I'm embarrassed that I misspelled it, cuz his book is right in front of me.
    - glenstein 13y ago

by ehsanu1 13y ago

yc-kjh 13y ago

It is obviously not a waste when we use computers to do syntax. Chess-playing computers can now beat the best international grandmasters; this is an example of computers doing syntax. For every task which is syntax only, it is a fantastic idea to make computers do the work, and relieve humans from the drudgery. I'm all in favor of that. But for any task which requires semantics -- real human intelligence -- it is foolish to attempt to replace humans. It cannot be done. What is required is the wisdom to know the difference between the two.

gphilip 13y ago
> But for any task which requires semantics -- real human intelligence -- it is foolish to attempt to replace humans. It cannot be done. Well we don't know this for sure, do we? "It's an open empirical question whether there are actual deterministic physical processes that, in the long run, elude simulation by a Turing machine; furthermore, ... it is an open empirical question whether any such processes are involved in the working of the human brain." [1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%E2%80%93Turing_thesis#Philosophical_implications http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%E2%80%93Turing_thesis#Ph...
- yc-kjh 13y ago
  If you accept materialism as true, then by the Church-Turing hypothesis it is a necessary and foregone conclusion that computers will achieve full human intelligence, and even more, because they do not get tired and are not distracted. But the hypothesis of materialism is what is in question here, both by my citation of the difference between syntax and semantics, and the obvious (to anybody who understands what a computer is and does) conclusion that computers do only syntax, while humans clearly do semantics also, and also by Searle's and Nagle's work. I think that the evidence (which most people want to deny) is very clear that materialism is false. Most people deal with this evidence by ignoring it, or by denying it exists in the first place. They never address it. You can prove me wrong. You can prove that materialism is correct. Just produce a real AI which is every bit as intelligent and capable as a human. Produce an AI which can really do semantics. Produce an AI which clearly convinces everybody that it is really intelligent in the way humans are, without any parlor tricks (like modelling an idiot savant). It is much harder to prove that materialism is false, but that is what Nagle has done in his recent book. Have you read it? If he has not convinced you, please critique his arguments.
  - gphilip 13y ago
    I am not an expert in whatever field "materialism" belongs, so I will defer to accepted knowledge (or lack thereof) as professed by layperson-friendly sources such as Wikipedia. Till the time I really get interested in these fine differences. May I point out that the tone you use in these discussions is not, in general, of a nature which encourages a lay person to even read what you say, much less to follow up on your ideas? People really do not like being looked down upon, and your writing comes across as quite condescending (among other things). Here are a couple of things from the parent comment to illustrate this: 1. "the obvious (to anybody who understands what a computer is and does) conclusion that computers do only syntax, while ..." Do you see what's wrong with a statement of the form "What I want to prove is obvious to anyone who knows even a little something", and how it might come across as (i) unacceptable hand-waving even in a research paper in the relevant field, and (ii) highly condescending in public discourse? 2. The whole paragraph starting with "You can prove me wrong. ..." comes across as childish. Who am I, anyway, and why should I go to all that trouble to prove you wrong, even if I was somehow capable of doing it? As an analogy, suppose in a discussion on life outside earth I quote current expert consensus as found on Wikipedia as saying that there is potentially life on Europa [1]. And someone retorts saying "No. Prove me wrong. Just build a spaceship which can go bring some life from Europa." Do you see something wrong with such a response? In particular, do you see something wrong with the use of the word "just" here? 3. Your repeated insistence that everyone should read some work and critique it before countering your arguments comes across as obnoxious behaviour. 4. A minor point: it is Nagel, not Nagle. I mention this because I see you making the same mistake in multiple comments. You seem to have interesting points to make. It would be good if you make them in a way which people find enjoyable to read. [1] I made this up on the spot. I don't know what the current expert consensus is, so check Wikipedia before taking this as true :). (Edit: Formatting)
    - yc-kjh 13y ago
      Thank you for correcting me on Nagel's name. I'm embarrassed that I misspelled it, cuz his book is right in front of me.
  - glenstein 13y ago