Computer Pseudoscience
city-journal.org
city-journal.org
Seems sorta odd to write a book today dismissing 1960s AI technology.
We need inferences and at least sets of labels as output to make sense of what the ML is doing, not simple matches or probabilities.
I see people talking all the time about how machines can't be conscious, but yet, animals are just machines themselves, so what gives?
It's religious I think. People just want to be special. Not only as individuals, but also as a species.
This is different from outputting random single value output. Typically people tend to use generic or vague terms rather than mismatch, which is very different from what ML does.
We can also output that we're not certain. And we can use surrounding context on a way current ML cannot.
The neuron either reaches a threshold to fire, or it does not. On or off.
In comparison, DNN are an abacus level of simplicity.
If we can mathematically model it, then we can use 1's and 0's to do so. What you are suggesting is that how we think and observe the world with our brains is not mathematically possible. If that's the case, then Math is wrong, or at best: an approximation to the universe.
Implication: Consciousness exists in the gap between the universe and math.
"For example, a correlation may exist between changes in temperature in an obscure Australian town and price changes in the U.S. stock market. A person would know that the two events have no connection."
> A person would know that the two events have no connection.
When a negative statement like this is presented as absolute and categorical it's very easy to disagree with it.
1. El Nino / Southern Oscillation affects the temperature in Australia and (especially South) America which would affect farm yields and hence US stock market prices.
2. Extra hot temperatures at a uranium mine near a town in Australia might limit productivity of that mine, causing uranium prices to change.
Just two off the top of my head. The effects might be only very mildly correlated, but not zero.
If you don't define it, than you might as well be saying it lacks a soul and can therefore never be truly intelligent. What does understanding a concept mean?
Because AI researchers have been working to get closer to this understanding for years, and to simply say "it isn't there yet" falls a bit flat. It's like saying climbing a tree isn't flying, while ignoring the attempts to fly with kites, wingsuits, or parachutes: we might not have a plane yet, but we are making progress.