2 ms·

Yes - very clear that he lands on the side of Norvig, but he takes it to an extreme further than Norvig, no?

• mark_l_watson 13y ago
  I think Cringley is more on Chompsky's side since he is concerned about not being able to understand the internals of models created with machine learning. It may sound like a contradiction, but I agree with both Norvig's and Chomsky's positions, depending on context. I would like to see a model for real AI developed from an understanding of how our brains work, but real AI will probably not be created that way. When/if we see real AI, we probably won't understand how it works.
  • hollerith 13y ago
    >When/if we see real AI, we probably won't understand how it works. If that's true, then it's very distressing since a smarter-than-us AI whose workings we do not understand would probably kill us all.
    • ableal 13y ago
      Maybe the AI will be sufficiently intelligent to just become catatonic in short order. (I believe I'm filching this from Larry Niven, no precise quotation handy.)
  • mathattack 13y ago
    This is symptomatic of what's happening in math. Theorem provers figure things out that are beyond our comprehension to test or follow. Considering how many bugs we find when things are simple enough to check, we have to be careful when things get too complex to check.