Comment by paulojreis | Hacker News Reader

Comment by paulojreis | Hacker News Reader

> "I believe it's not in serious doubt that an intelligent computer is possible" -

Yes, of course it is possible, if we change the meaning of "intelligent" to fit what a computer does. :)

Generally, I think the problem here - as in many other situations - starts with the lack of rigor that computer science has when "naming" fields or, most exactly, appropriating concepts from other fields.

* Computer Vision: "vision" has a defined meaning, even "organic-related". Signal processing and a bunch of algorithms aren't exactly what vision is and what we define as "vision";

* Machine learning: does the computer really learns, as understood by the common definition of "learning"?

* Context awareness: if we consider common definitions, neither a few sensor readings are "context", nor acting according to said readings is "awareness".

This might sound like nitpicking, but I truly think it's a real problem. Talking about vision, learning or intelligence put's the stake at what people or the general scientific community commonly perceive as those concepts.

What's most frustrating to me is the contrast. Computer science research is thorough; why are we not thorough on naming our fields of study? Why do we appropriate concepts by "analogy", knowingly that analogies aren't truly exact?

While I think there is some grandiose and hype that gets attached to these fields by the media, you have to recognize that these names represent the end goal of the field, not the current status of where we are today.

No, computer vision researchers haven't achieved what you and I perceive as vision, no more than a biochemical research in cancer cures have found a cure to cancer.

But I would argue that these lofty named fields are a good thing. Academia is already plagued by it's uncertainty and lack of an inherent "end game." Let's not make it worse by renaming machine learning to "computer pattern recognition." Pattern recognition is just a possible piece of the puzzle or step in the process to creating AI, not the actual holy grail of achievement.

I see your point but - according to the way I was thought - you shouldn't use operative concepts so "freely".

If you use e.g. "vision" in your research as a basic concept, then you should do a thorough state of the art inquiry and state exactly what you understand by it (using, of course, the state of the art). I don't believe this was done when someone thought of naming these fields as they did. I also don't think that beginning researchers do this basic "background" check; they try to achieve "vision" (or "intelligence") without a clear (and at least commonly accepted) definition of "vision" (or "intelligence").

As I said above, I can see your point, but I wouldn't do this in the scientific community. Nothing wrong about saying in the news that you want to make a computer see, but e.g. having a journal with a misdefined or malappropriated concept in its name is - IMHO - wrong.

> Yes, of course it is possible, if we change the meaning of "intelligent" to fit what a computer does. :)

I don't think that's what he's doing. Otherwise he could just define intelligence to mean what computers do now. Clearly he has at least roughly the same idea of intelligence you or I do.

> "I believe it's not in serious doubt that an intelligent computer is possible"

Do you have an objection to this specific statement when taken to mean general human-like intelligence being exhibited by computers? I have not heard anyone defend the opposite viewpoint often, and I'm interested if there are any compelling arguments why it's not possible.

> Do you have an objection to this specific statement when taken to mean general human-like intelligence being exhibited by computers? I have not heard anyone defend the opposite viewpoint often, and I'm interested if there are any compelling arguments why it's not possible.

A few aspects which relate and shape intelligence:

1) Socialization; 2) Embodiment (the fact that I have a body and the body has feedback loops - affects and is affected by cognition); 3) Emotions (we have "hunches" and those hunches are surprisingly many times adequate); 4) Language (our sign system affects our perception of the world).

Will a computer be able to be a sociable, embodied person? I tend to think that it won't, so that's roughly why I believe a computer won't ever have "intelligence" (unless, again, we redefine intelligence).

1) 2) 3) Are I think research goals of robotics. None are simple but I don't personally think they require anything that isn't possible to accomplish with computer + physical objects beyond the computer itself.

Any algorithms we use to simulate intelligence with machines are excessively wasteful.

There's not enough energy to simulate human intelligence at the same speed that humans think, without just essentially producing biological computers.

And that's more of bio-engineering than anything relating to computing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com