11–20 of 152 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But what exactly is true artificial intelligence? For example, I consider Google search and Wolfram alpha very intelligent. They can do math, answer questions, rank information, follow current events, ...
They're still computers in the traditional sense - they only do what someone told them to do.
Isn't this basically an argument over John Searle's Chinese Room thought experiment? It supposes that there is a program that gives a computer the ability to carry on an intelligent conversation in written Chinese. If the program is given to someone who speaks only English to execute the instructions of the program by hand, then in theory, the English speaker would also be able to carry on a conversation in written C…
The argument is whether a computer can learn language (well) from scratch, or whether some capacity for language must be built into the computer manually. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_of_the_stimulus
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having studied Chomsky a fair bit in grad school, and also studied cognitive linguistics a fair bit in grad school, I think the idea that Chomsky's models will ever win anything is just wrong. Chomsky's central problem is that his modeling is not based on anything biological at all. His models don't correspond to reality. Some of them were based on some assumptions about how the brain works that were untestable in th…
Children learn language much faster than it seems possible for a "blank" neural network to learn. It seems that there is some "circuitry" hard-wired into the human brain that helps learning language. So the question is: can a computer learn language as well as a human, without simply hard-coding language into it?
Well, in the big picture, Chomsky created an activity which keeps liguists very busy. His approach, however, has contributed very little to language engineering.
I do agree it's been less successful for its original intended purpose, but things often find new life, which seems okay.
Isn't this basically an argument over John Searle's Chinese Room thought experiment? It supposes that there is a program that gives a computer the ability to carry on an intelligent conversation in written Chinese. If the program is given to someone who speaks only English to execute the instructions of the program by hand, then in theory, the English speaker would also be able to carry on a conversation in written C…
'Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the "old one." I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice.' --Einstein
Statistical methods can work but they are unsatisfying to the scientifically curious. You're not really a scientist if you create something that works and you don't really know why. (Not to say that the method doesn't have value. Sometimes you have to play with your Lego before you grow up.)
They have two different definitions of "artificial intelligence," which is where the schism seems to be arising from. Chomsky takes the academic approach - artificial intelligence is the simulation of humanlike (or even possibly mammalian) intelligence. Norvig is taking the engineering approach - artificial intelligence needs only to pass the Turing test. They're both right, both approaches have value, and they both…
They have two different definitions of "artificial intelligence," which is where the schism seems to be arising from. Chomsky takes the academic approach - artificial intelligence is the simulation of humanlike (or even possibly mammalian) intelligence. Norvig is taking the engineering approach - artificial intelligence needs only to pass the Turing test. They're both right, both approaches have value, and they both…
Passing the Turing test and the simulation of intelligence are supposed to be the same thing. Turing came up with the test to sidestep the definition of intelligence.
I’m not sure what you mean by “but in order to have real intelligence you need an analytical engine (or brain, if you will) that can prioritize data without fiddling with bits. In the Norvig solution, someone will always have to be fiddling with the bits”. Do you mean bits as in pieces or as in ones and zeros ? If the former, haven’t Chomsky’s models required the addition of new parameters as exceptions to his rules are found ? If you mean the latter, how is a computer to prioritize data if it can’t look at bits ?
There seems to be the misconception that Norvig does not use simple models. He does, just ones that use statistics for training and to learn. His approach strikes me as elegant, simple and more robust to changes in language over time than Chomsky’s.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're still computers in the traditional sense - they only do what someone told them to do.
You are right, but to solve most problems, do machines really HAVE to think like humans?
My point was, that, for example, language recognition doesn't need human intelligence, a statistical model is enough.
Or driving around a confined space only requires a particle filter, not human intelligence.