Live data from Hacker News

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

medium.com

61–70 of 89 posts

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

#61
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…

> If listening to a request and executing a command is understanding, then computers have been understanding us for a long time. Even without the latest advances in AI.

I think this is a reasonable thing to say, in the limited way he has defined ‘understanding’. People forget what a titanic achievement that user interfaces that allow us to communicate our intentions to a computer and receive a relevant response actually are, whether it’s using a voice or clicking a button.

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

#62
post #59
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…

> Siri was waiting for a command and executed the best command that matched. Which is, make a phone call. ISTM there's no more "understanding" involved in this than when I touch the Contacts icon on my screen, then "C", "A", "R", etc until Carol's entry is displayed, and then I touch the Phone icon to initiate a call. The fact that the interface used was sound-waves that the device recognised as matching the keyword…

Your neurons don’t understand who carol is either, they’re just automatically responding to stimulus.

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

#63
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…

> If listening to a request and executing a command is understanding, then computers have been understanding us for a long time. Even without the latest advances in AI. I think this is a reasonable thing to say, in the limited way he has defined ‘understanding’. People forget what a titanic achievement that user interfaces that allow us to communicate our intentions to a computer and receive a relevant response actua…

But do we communicate with a mechanical slot machine when we push a coin in and then pull the lever?

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

#64
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…

The problem is with the hype which leads many to believe that we are close to building systems which can understand us. The problem with the hype is that we are nowhere close to building systems that understand anything . All we've built are calculators on steroids so far.

Worse, we've build a conceptualisation of these phenomena that renders us as calculators on steroids! I don't think it's feasible to account for or describe anything more with the ideas we have so far.

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

#65
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…

Also to be able to manipulate and use the conceptual realisation ? "I could use this twig (but not that twig) as a hook for ants if I strip the bark off and turn it when I hold it i the hole, then I can eat the ants"

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

#66
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Then animals do not understand. I am agnostic regarding that, as I don't think there is any evidence that they do not attempt to build models that are consistent representations of reality. I am assuming, based on my own experience, they also have this "internal lightbulb" going on when they think they have built the correct model. But whether they are actually cognizant of it (self-aware), I have no idea. (I guess…

There is a lot of evidence that they do though - wolves splitting the pack to ambush the tired deer at the end of the valley, chimps and corvids using tools and water displacement to achieve goals, whales bubble fishing in teams.

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

#67
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…

I gave grover-mega this problem:

Question: What is an example of a bird? Answer: An egret. Question: What is another example? Answer: Canaries.

Seems to do fine. I don't really have a stop though, so it goes on making up new questions on it's own. Make of it what you will. Very few of the answers are correct or even coherent enough to be correct: https://hastebin.com/agululiqif.txt

I do like this one though:

Question: Who is the inventor of the English ham? Answer: Poor old Francis Bacon.

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

#68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 v…

I would call the moving goalposts a subtle sign of a win as well if it is getting closer that previous "unthinkable" tasks need more qualifiers. Missing or adding them makes it easier or harder. To be a smartass anything can pass a text messages from the comatose (that is nothing) and nothing can reliably "prove" itself god by say resurrecting and teleporting your dead relatives to you would be obviously useful but impossible as that isn't something text messages can do.

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

#69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans also squirt fluids around in their brains. Brains as machines is one of many ways to think about humans. Humans can conceive of and move past thoughts or concepts that would cause a machine to crash. I think more ideas describe human brains than being simply machines, though that idea is useful in places. Making the claim about what a human is in the absolute, is more about what you fill the unknown with than…

Are you equating machine here with "sequentially programmed computer?". Because computers and neural networks specifically have gone far beyond that.

I get how ML works. I don't mean loops as a for(int i) loop, but the concept of a loop itself, a circle. A self-driven car with ML decision making is still bounded by some rules we will be forced to compromise on. Some people at MIT are focusing on deaths per miles driven as a safety metric to determine whether we can replace humans with ai cars and when that might happen.

But given the constraints of ML/ai you will eventually have a bounded container where an ai car can operate and where it can't. The car will be tasked with looping through that environment from job to job then back to recharge at it's base station. For all the sophistication of getting the car on the road and working it won't really be making up it's own story through the world nor will it understand the greater context of it's actions. The pattern recognition in CV is great, but it is fed by humans, so the meaning that a tree should be avoided has been initially put in by a programmer, even if the car in the moment chooses to avoid the tree by itself. The car is crunching meaningless numbers like a pipe directs water.

So when people say a machine "understands something" it can't ever really be true because all of our machines don't know what is going on in the world, they only know what numbers they see and how to behave when those numbers change. At the very bottom it's electricity looping through logic gates and that same principle is repeated all the way up to a car that loops through it's environment and comes back.

If all the humans left the planet, the car wouldn't be described as understanding the world, it'll be seen as a generic device sitting in a garage somewhere waiting for orders from a human. If you fill the earth with aliens the CV breaks not having seen aliens before, the roads get changed over time by nature, the high detail mapping it relies on fails. The cars "understanding" only exists as an outcome of electric impulse. It doesn't understand and never could. We are building more and more sophisticated loops, and I'm glad, but to think computers can understand is a doomed project. They will never "get" the values, intents and stories we put in them. Computers will forever be a labour of love is not able to regress into understanding what we mean it to be.

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

#70
To be gadflyish do humans even truly understand or do they just claim they do because they had the observations roughly encoded from what they have been taught? Teachings which themselves often include unfounded assumptions or outright superstition.

Human understanding has been wrong often enough, missing enough crucial context to be dangerously hillariously wrong even amongst the "experts" of the day who came closest.

The isn't some epistemological nilhism but to point out that understanding is incomplete for everyone and just because a given intelligence subset doesn't match with our assumptions doesn't mean it is wrong - although it also isn't always right.

Post reply on HN