Noam Chomsky v. IBM’s Watson Computer • Hacker News Board

Re: Noam Chomsky v. IBM’s Watson Computer

#21

Post by burgerbrain » Mon, Feb 14, 2011, 8:01 PM UTC

synnik wrote: post #18

tzs wrote: post #15

Steamrollers, even bigger ones don't learn from their mistakes. Watson does. For example, in one of the auditions they did for the Jeopardy producers, the questions in the category each referred to two holidays which occurred in the same calendar month, and the question was supposed to ask what is that month. Watson did not get it. it was finding sensible answers, but answers that did not fit the category. It got a c…

There is a difference between learning from your mistakes and using the same algorithm on an updated data source.

Is there? I don't touch things that cause pain. I, in ignorance, touch a hot stove. Now I no longer touch hot stoves, but my algorithm remained the same.

Even if you were right, it'd just be another example of "do submarines swim?". The difference is meaningless.

Re: Noam Chomsky v. IBM’s Watson Computer

#22

Post by kfranken » Mon, Feb 14, 2011, 8:21 PM UTC

Turing's paper is available online: http://mind.oxfordjournals.org/content/LIX/236/433.full.pdf

It's 28 pages, not the 8 pages claimed by Chomsky, but it's quite readable.

Re: Noam Chomsky v. IBM’s Watson Computer

#23

Post by mhewett » Mon, Feb 14, 2011, 8:38 PM UTC

I presume that Chomsky is not impressed with his own brain, since it is just a "bigger steamroller" than other primate brains.

Re: Noam Chomsky v. IBM’s Watson Computer

#24

Post by ochoa » Mon, Feb 14, 2011, 8:45 PM UTC

burgerbrain wrote: post #21

synnik wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a difference between learning from your mistakes and using the same algorithm on an updated data source.

Is there? I don't touch things that cause pain. I, in ignorance, touch a hot stove. Now I no longer touch hot stoves, but my algorithm remained the same. Even if you were right, it'd just be another example of "do submarines swim?". The difference is meaningless.

Having algorithms that learn is nothing new. Steamrollers (neural networks, genetic algorithms, etc.) have been learning from their mistakes for a long time. I think chubot (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2217740) explained best the problem Chomsky seems to have with Watson.

Re: Noam Chomsky v. IBM’s Watson Computer

#25

Post by icandoitbetter » Mon, Feb 14, 2011, 9:09 PM UTC

synnik wrote: post #18

tzs wrote: post #15

Steamrollers, even bigger ones don't learn from their mistakes. Watson does. For example, in one of the auditions they did for the Jeopardy producers, the questions in the category each referred to two holidays which occurred in the same calendar month, and the question was supposed to ask what is that month. Watson did not get it. it was finding sensible answers, but answers that did not fit the category. It got a c…

There is a difference between learning from your mistakes and using the same algorithm on an updated data source.

No. Learning is an algorithm that is applied on an algorithm. There is nothing spooky about it. I wish more people realized that before they started claiming that "machines and humans are different in that humans can learn from their mistakes while machines can't" -- of course they can.

Re: Noam Chomsky v. IBM’s Watson Computer

#26

Post by synnik » Mon, Feb 14, 2011, 9:10 PM UTC

burgerbrain wrote: post #21

synnik wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a difference between learning from your mistakes and using the same algorithm on an updated data source.

Is there? I don't touch things that cause pain. I, in ignorance, touch a hot stove. Now I no longer touch hot stoves, but my algorithm remained the same. Even if you were right, it'd just be another example of "do submarines swim?". The difference is meaningless.

Yes, there is a difference, and it is not meaningless.

Let's go with your example. You don't touch things that cause pain. And you think that hot stoves, fire, etc cause pain. But what if people show you the trick to walking over hot coals? Then you are able to touch an object that you previously would not have. Not because your list of items that cause pain has changed, but because you developed a deeper understanding of WHY they caused pain, and adjust your algorithm to take that into account. You now are thinking about HOW you are touching an object, and not just about the object itself.

To me, this is a clear, meaningful difference. We're not talking about semantics, we're talking about a fundamental adjustment to the questions and processes you go through before making a decision.

Re: Noam Chomsky v. IBM’s Watson Computer

#27

Post by icandoitbetter » Mon, Feb 14, 2011, 9:15 PM UTC

Yeah, and the brain is nothing more than a bunch of atoms. Nobody is aware that you can make every single thing sound unimpressive by brutally reducing it to its components, and nobody has used that trick before! Way to go, Chomsky. Insightful as a twelve year old.

Re: Noam Chomsky v. IBM’s Watson Computer

#28

Post by Jach » Mon, Feb 14, 2011, 9:23 PM UTC

iwwr wrote: post #11

MrScruff wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, the majority of what our minds are concerned with is evolutionary baggage derived from natural selection.

It would be very strange if the AI had no self-image or were not concerned with its own survival. If it's only lacking a self-image, it may become a solipsistic entity of sorts.

Potentially more useful to get you thinking of different mind designs, personify evolution for a moment. It's not general intelligence, but it built you, which is pretty amazing, all with the only goal in "its mind" being to favor genes with more copies in each generation of replication.

Re: Noam Chomsky v. IBM’s Watson Computer

#29

Post by calibraxis » Mon, Feb 14, 2011, 9:26 PM UTC

People would do well reading Chomsky's many writings on the subject, rather than reacting to these tiny snippets. Like maybe "Language and Problems of Knowledge: the Managua Lectures" or "Language and Thought".

http://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=turing+...

A quick email conversation or off-the-cuff interview is too brief to convey the context. Most of the dismissive comments here don't seem to engage that context in a way that makes me confident that they're informed by it.

Re: Noam Chomsky v. IBM’s Watson Computer

#30

Post by joe_the_user » Mon, Feb 14, 2011, 9:27 PM UTC

synnik wrote: post #18

tzs wrote: post #15

Steamrollers, even bigger ones don't learn from their mistakes. Watson does. For example, in one of the auditions they did for the Jeopardy producers, the questions in the category each referred to two holidays which occurred in the same calendar month, and the question was supposed to ask what is that month. Watson did not get it. it was finding sensible answers, but answers that did not fit the category. It got a c…

There is a difference between learning from your mistakes and using the same algorithm on an updated data source.

If my algorithm is an interpreter and my data is a program to be interpreted, then distinguishing between using a new algorithm and "using the same algorithm on an updated data source" is rather difficult.

Which isn't to say an interpreter is "intelligent" but the criteria of whether you are "using the same algorithm" seems insufficient.