Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What does it mean for a machine to “understand”?

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 89 posts

Re: What does it mean for a machine to “understand”?

#41

Post by harperlee »

julvo wrote: post #33
visarga wrote: post #20

Does AlphaGo 'understand' go? I think the key ingredient is 'being in the game', that means, having a body, being in an environment with a purpose. Humans are by default playing this game called 'life', we have to understand otherwise we perish, or our genes perish. It's not about symbolic vs connectionist, or qualia, or self consciousness. It's about being in the world, acting and observing the effects of actions, a…

If the Agent would 'understand' Go, we'd expect it to adapt to a round board easily. Humans probably would. (argument from Gary Marcus)

So we not only need to encode/compress information, we also need to extract meaning that is (at least partially) reusable on new contexts.

Re: What does it mean for a machine to “understand”?

#42

Post by _xnmw »

goto11 wrote: post #8
_xnmw wrote: post #4

I'm with John Searle on the Chinese room [1] opinion, i.e. that a machine cannot be said to "understand" language even if it is able to pass the Turing Test. That is because when we say "understand", we are referring to particular kind of human experience (qualia?) that a machine simply doesn't seem to have, but animals, for example, do. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

Unfortunately you have no way of determining if a machine or animal have this particular experience qualia. You cant even determine of other people beside yourself have it, which gives rise to solipsism. It like saying that red-headed people doesn't have a soul - there is no way to disprove that assertion.

The point is not whether we can prove that machines have such an experience. The point is, most people will agree that it “seems” like machines don’t have feelings, which is itself interesting because it suggests that our intuitive definition of “understanding” is not limited to a logical set of inputs and outputs. It is a proof that when we say “he understands”, we are referring to something more than a logical answer, and whatever that “something more” is, machines don’t have it.

Re: What does it mean for a machine to “understand”?

#43

Post by Entropee »

There is a side-note to be had here.

Shannon defines 'communication' as 'all the procedures by which one mind may affect another and then goes on to define the semantic problem ( How precisely do the transmitted symbols convey the desired meaning? ) and the effectiveness problem ( How effectively does the received meaning affect the conduct in the desired way? ).

In both cases it seems to me that 'intentionality' is a necessary (but insufficient) pre-requisite for understanding communicated messages.

If the clouds in the sky happened to spell out "I am thirsty." you would notch this down to some ridiculous coincidence which satisfies the Infinite monkeys theorem. There is nothing to be understood in that sentence because there is neither an intended meaning nor an expectation of effectiveness.

There is something to be understood when a human says it. When you bring that person a glass of water they have positive feedback loop that their message was effective.

Re: What does it mean for a machine to “understand”?

#44

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

netsharc wrote: post #28
nutanc wrote: post #22

This is a good balanced article that gets a lot of things right. We should take a forgiving approach when we talk about AI systems. And as the author points out the problem is not that AI systems dont have understanding yet. The problem is with the hype which leads many to believe that we are close to building systems which can understand us. That said, I have a small problem with the examples presented to say that a…

So the next version of Siri can locate Carol's phone in the next room and will just beep her phone to tell her to see you. Of course that's still not understanding. The classic analogue is of course the Chinese room argument: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

Which is an absolutely textbook example of begging the question.

If you could make a machine pass the Turing test it might be intelligent - but no one has, and it's debatable if it's even possible, and it's even more debatable if, hype notwithstanding, the Turing test is even a good test of human-equivalent intelligence, because it ignores side channels that are fundamental to human communication, including tone of voice, posture, and facial expression.

(Yes, people communicate over email/SMS. But no one communicates over email/SMS without an implied social context that hugely limits and simplifies the content of any conversation.)

It's not the "call Carol" problem that needs to be solved. It's the "understand the entire world context well enough to know how to call Carol without being told - which includes being able to research information that isn't already available, and also includes edge cases like 'We went to Carol's funeral last week' and 'Carol had her phone stolen yesterday' and 'Carol is flying to Australia and won't be receiving messages for another 12 hours" and "Carol prefers FaceTime to WhatsApp."

And so on.

Ultimately your toy machine has to show evidence that it understands the entire world and can learn about it like a human can - which includes being able to do original research that isn't a simple literal Google search, parse humour, understand emotional responses and common cultural references, and follow standard social protocols.

That's a much harder problem than having a vaguely plausible limited text-only conversation, whether it's in Chinese, English, or Swahili.

Re: What does it mean for a machine to “understand”?

#45

Post by cjfd »

On the one hand the quote by Edsger Dijkstra comes to mind. "The question of whether machines can think is about as relevant as the question of whether submarines can swim." We are hardwired to attribute great significance to what happens both in our own head and that of other people.

On the other hand, machines still perform actions that one could call 'stupid'. When alphago was losing in the fourth match against Lee Sedol it would play 'stupid' moves. These were, for instance, trivial threads that any somewhat accomplished amateur go player would recognize in an instant and answer correctly.

Humans, and also animals, have a hierarchy in their understanding of things. This maps on brain structure too. Evolution has added layers to the brain while keeping the existing structure. In this layered structure the lower parts are faster and more accurate but not as sophisticated. Stupidity arises because of a lack of layeredness so when the goal of winning the game is thwarted the top layer doesn't have any useful thing to do anymore and it falls back on a layer behind that. For alphago pretty much the only layer behind its very strong go engine is the rules of go. So, even when it is losing it will never play an illegal move but it will do otherwise trivially stupid things. For humans there is a layer between these things that prevents them from doing useless stuff. For living entities this is essential for survival. You can be forgetful of your dentist appointment but it is not possible to forget to let your heart beat. It seems that this problem could be mended by putting layers between the top level algorithm and most basic hardware level such that stupid stuff is preempted.

Re: What does it mean for a machine to “understand”?

#46

Post by goatlover »

tshaddox wrote: post #26
goatlover wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that we’re using a word based on human mental activity and social agreement and then applying that to a computational process in a machine, which likely leaves out part of the human experience which makes up the word understand. It’s more accurate to say the Chinese room computes results which humans recognize as successful translation from English to Chinese. The understanding is all on the side interpr…

Then what is the point in asking if a machine “understands” English and Chinese? It sounds like the question would be either completely untestable, or the answer would just be “no” by definition because we’re defining “understanding” to be “based on human mental activity.” It just doesn’t seem like a useful question if the answer can not be determined by a test such as the Chinese room thought experiment.

Well, if we asked this about Data from Star Trek, then the answer would have to be yes, or mostly yes (Data does struggle to make sense of some human behavior on the show). So then the question is what gives Data an understanding that the Chinese Room lacks?

Data participates in human society and he has a human-like body. Data also has subjective experiences, as evidence by his dream sequences in one episode. Whereas the Chinese Room is just following a bunch of rules for translation. But Data doesn't merely translate from one set of symbols to another given a large set of rules. He learns by interacting with people and his experiences as an android. From that we could say understanding is the result of an embodied social activity that the Chinese Room completely lacks. Whatever the Chinese room is said to be doing, that's not the same as understanding language.

Another way to put it is that language isn't equivalent to symbol manipulation, even though it makes use of symbols, or a least since the written word was invented.

Re: What does it mean for a machine to “understand”?

#47

Post by _xnmw »

tshaddox wrote: post #26
goatlover wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that we’re using a word based on human mental activity and social agreement and then applying that to a computational process in a machine, which likely leaves out part of the human experience which makes up the word understand. It’s more accurate to say the Chinese room computes results which humans recognize as successful translation from English to Chinese. The understanding is all on the side interpr…

Then what is the point in asking if a machine “understands” English and Chinese? It sounds like the question would be either completely untestable, or the answer would just be “no” by definition because we’re defining “understanding” to be “based on human mental activity.” It just doesn’t seem like a useful question if the answer can not be determined by a test such as the Chinese room thought experiment.

The point of asking such a question is to prove whether or not computational processes accurately model the human brain.

Unfortunately this is a recursive question, because the only device we have for exploring the difference between a brain and a computer is our brains. Thus, I believe the Chinese room experiment is rightly composed of as a thought experiment - what other means do we have for assessing our difference from computers other than our intuition?

Re: What does it mean for a machine to “understand”?

#48

Post by mjburgess »

js8 wrote: post #13

I have a straightforward definition of "understand". To understand means to be able to give a (representative) example of the (intensionally) given set. Though it is harder than it seems, as it usually means solving the constraint satisfaction problem. For example, take the classical AI knowledgebase fragment, "bird is animal that flies". If I ask example of bird, it can say "eagle", and exhibit some understanding. W…

Then animals do not understand.

You've rigged this up to operationalize it for current digital machines.

"Understanding", "Intelligence", etc. is a feature of animals in their environment. We need to begin there; and that is what we are talking about.

We "understand" how to drive as a dog "understands" how to play fetch. Understanding is not ever going to be a trivial rule that some digital system may instantiate.

It will always require direct causal contact with an environment. In my view "understanding" is "competent play in a changing environment" -- ie., the ability to modify the environment as it changes in accordance with your goals.

This rough definition is inspired by work in animals to understand the role of the neocortex, and animal learning, and the role of consciousness therein. Roughly: consciousness is "perceptual and cognitive intelligence grappling with environmental change".

Re: What does it mean for a machine to “understand”?

#50

Post by js8 »

deepbake wrote: post #38
js8 wrote: post #13

I have a straightforward definition of "understand". To understand means to be able to give a (representative) example of the (intensionally) given set. Though it is harder than it seems, as it usually means solving the constraint satisfaction problem. For example, take the classical AI knowledgebase fragment, "bird is animal that flies". If I ask example of bird, it can say "eagle", and exhibit some understanding. W…

"bat" would be a correct response based on the knowledge fragment wouldn't it?

I think you're right. The word "to understand" has two meanings. In the narrow sense, it's the feeling that we have when we "get it", that is we think that we have built a correct model of reality and it passes the logic consistency check (which is verified by being able to give an example or counterexample). In the broad sense, it means to build and apply correct models of reality.

Above, I am talking in the narrow sense. So the fact that the model itself is wrong shouldn't be an issue. But in the broad sense, we could say that understanding is ability to convert between intensional and extensional (ostensive) representations (models) of the world. Finding an example from intensional representation is just one task that is required.

Post reply on HN