Xref: utzoo talk.philosophy.misc:3883 comp.ai:6535 Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!rutgers!umn-d-ub!cs.umn.edu!hougen From: hougen@cs.umn.edu (Dean Hougen) Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,comp.ai Subject: Re: Why the Chinese Room doesn't convince Summary: novice+list system understands, does Kasparov? Keywords: functional definitions, understanding, Message-ID: <1990Apr8.191524.6565@cs.umn.edu> Date: 8 Apr 90 19:15:24 GMT References: <23100@mimsy.umd.edu> <1990Mar19.153959.6113@sjuphil.uucp> <0541@sheol.UUCP> <1990Mar26.155415.21756@sjuphil.uucp> <0556@sheol.UUCP> <1990Apr3.162019.27598@maths.tcd.ie> <1990Apr5.202224.27534@caen.en <1990Apr6.14494 Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis - CSCI Dept. Lines: 242 In article <1990Apr6.144947.11473@maths.tcd.ie>, ftoomey@maths.tcd.ie (Fergal Toomey)writes: >In article <1990Apr5.202224.27534@caen.engin.umich.edu> >zarnuk@caen.engin.umich.edu (Paul Steven Mccarthy) writes: >>You are assuming that "understanding" has some meaning beyond the >>information that can be gleaned from observation. I disagree. I >>assert that "understanding" should be defined by functional behavior. >> >>In the example that you presented of the novice assisted by Kasparov >>(the international grand master), I would say that the system being >>observed: novice+Kasparov did _indeed_ display "understanding" of >>chess. >Perhaps I should have chosen a better example. The novice+Kasparov >idea was originally intended to parallel the computer+programmer idea >in computer science. If you argue that the system under consideration >is not just the novice, but the novice *plus* Kasparov, then what can >we say about an apparently intelligent computer program? Must we say >that it is not the computer that is intelligent, but the computer >*plus* its programmer? The fact that you present a revision of the analogy (below) indicates to me that you do not believe that your novice+Kasparov analogy (above) to be adequate to answer this question in the positive. Neither do I. The fact that in the one case the novice is exactly a conduit for Kasparov (note that he can be removed from the system without effecting performance) should be sufficient to tell us that the analogy (above) is fataly flawed. >Let me put it like this: suppose the novice >has brain damage, so that he is incapable of understanding chess, but ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ You're cheating. "We assume that he can't understand chess but he can play chess, therefore we know that we shouldn't give 'understanding' a functional definition." You are assuming what you wish to prove. We need to define what the novice can and can't do *without* reference to whether or not he 'understands' and *then* try to determine if we can apply the term 'understanding' to him. (Analogy: Assume my cat can't cook but he can create terrific meals, therefore we know that we shouldn't give 'cooking' a functional definition. But if we are trying to determine the definition of 'cooking', then to *assume* that he can't do it is premature.) Perhaps we should rephrase this as "traditional methods to teach him chess have failed" or something similar. >he is capable of carrying out simple instructions. He is also capable >of speaking English fluently. He is given a long list of instructions >from Gary Kasparov telling him exactly what move to make in every >board situation that can possibly arise during a chess game (the number >of possible board configurations is very, very high, but finite). You ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Too high for the list to ever be created but this is a thought experiment so we can give him this list for purposes of our investigation anyway. But why do you feel the need to mention that it is finite? >now start playing chess with the novice, as well as with one other, normal, >average chess player. You are, of course, beaten by the novice+list system, >but you beat the normal, average, player. You conclude that the novice+list >system has a better understanding of the game than the normal player. You ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I conclude that the novice+list system has a better *understanding of how to play the game*. I don't assume that the novice+list system has a better understanding of all aspects of the game such as historical origins, etc. >ask the normal player: >"Why do you think you lost?" >"Well, I think I shouldn't have castled on move 8... and maybe I should have >moved my queen out earlier... " >You ask the novice+list (the novice remember, can speak English fluently), >"Why do you think you won?" >"Well, uhmm, yes, ... er," You ask the normal player: "Who was the world chess champion in 1962?" "Well, uhmm, yes, ... er," >My point is that the system "novice+list" has no understanding of the >game, although it can beat you every time. My point is that the normal player has *no understanding* of the game, although he can tell you why he lost. You may argue that knowing the name of the world chess champion in 1962 is not all there is to understanding chess; that the normal player can still have a partial understanding of the game without being able to answer this question. I might argue that the same is true for the novice+list system in relation to the question that you posed to it. How did you come to the conclusion that being able to explain why you won is *all there is to understanding chess*? Why should I buy this? Why should I not maintain that the novice+list system has a partial understanding of the game (precisely that it understands how to play chess) without being able to answer your question? >The list corresponds to >a computer program, the novice to a computer. Saying that we must consider >the "Kasparov+novice+list" system instead is equivalent to saying that we >must always consider the "Programmer+computer+program" system instead of >the "computer+program" system. I agree that we need not look at the Kasparov+novice+list system. Unlike in your earlier version of the analogy this novice is not redundant. In this version it is the novice operating on the list that allows Kasparov to go about his life without having to be actively involved in the novice's chess games. I simply maintain that the novice+list system understands (how to play) chess. >This argument is demonstably false, in >that chess-playing programs have been written which consistently beat >their authors. This does not demonstrate the falsehood of considering the programmer- computer-program system instead of the computer-program system. After all, the programmer-computer-program system is different than the programmer-alone system, and so the performance of two is likely to be different. >Clearly these programs were not simply programmed to play >"brute-force" chess, they were deliberated programmed to analyse the >game, to think up new moves, ... to "understand". Unfortunately, >there is no way of distinguishing between a "brute-force" program >and an "understanding" program if you consider only their behaviour: >you have to look at the algorithms themselves. Assume this is true. Why is it unfortunate that we cannot distinguish between the "'understanding' program" and the brute-force program on the basis of their behavior? Obviously you wish to say that the "'understanding' program" understands, but the brute-force program does not. But simply putting the 'undertanding' label on the one and not the other does not mean that the one actually does understand or that the other does not. In fact, let's use your own analogy here. We write a speech program for the computer running the "'understanding' program". It can now speek fluently in English. You play a game of chess with it. You ask it, "Why do you think you won/lost/drew?" "Well, uhmm, yes, ... er," My point is this new system has *no understanding of the game*, although sometimes it beats you. You may argue that being able to expalain why you won/lost/drew is not all there is to understanding chess; that this system can still have a partial understanding of the game without being able to answer this question. In this case you agree with my point above, that we have yet to find a reason for saying that the novice+list doesn't understand and therefore have found no reason not to define 'understanding' by functional behavior. Or you may agree with me that this system is has no understanding; that it is just like the brute-force system - in direct contradiction to your assertion above that it is unfortunate that we cannot distinguish between the two. In this case we agree that this discussion has yet to find a reason for not defining 'understanding' by functional behavior. >>Certainly the algorithms employed by a system affect the level of >>"understanding" that the system can display, but the idea that there >>is a "magical" algorithm that represents "true" understanding, while >>all other algorithms represent ignorance is absurd. Even the idea >>that there is a fuzzy boundary between algorithms which display >>"understanding" and algorithms that do not is highly suspect. > >IMO, there is a fuzzy boundary between the two, and I do not see >at all why this should be highly suspect. People make all kinds of >distinctions between algorithms already, for example between >"brute force" algorithms and "insight" algorithms. That people do this does not make it correct. >Why shouldn't we be able to say: > >"This computer has been programmed to play chess, and this computer >has been programmed to *understand* how to play chess (and in fact >the first computer has beaten Kasparov, but the second computer >has given Kasparov some hints to improve his game next time)." Do you realize that you just asked us to believe that the second computer has been programmed to *understand* chess based on its functional behavior? Would a brute-force chess-hint machine (one which contains a list of all possible games and a hint associated each one) understand chess? Is it necessary to take your strategy a step further and ask the hint-machine, "Why do you think you came up with that hint?" "Well, uhmm, yes, ... er," That hint-machine has *no understanding of the game*, although it can give advice on how to improve your game. The fact is that your strategy assumes that one *can* use functional behavior to determine whether or not a system understands, and you are using this strategy to try to argue that 'understanding' should *not* be defined by functional behavior. Note also that recursive application of this strategy to people will prove that we have *no understanding of the game* either. Perhaps I should point out that by steping back and asking the system "Why do you think you won/lost?" you were looking for understanding of a different sort. The original question was, "Can you tell by watching it play whether a system understands chess *strategy*?" although the word 'strategy' was left unspoken. You changed the question to, "Can you tell by watching it play whether a system understands how to learn from its mistakes at chess?" In normal human chess players these go hand in hand - this is how we acquire our understanding of strategy. But if a system does not get its strategy in the normal way will you argue that it has no strategy at all? Is its play then random? >>To my mind, there can only be a _functional_ definition of >>"understanding". How do you know that Kasparov uses a different >>algorithm for playing chess than the computer? Better yet, how >>do you know that Kasparov "understands" chess -- except by virtue >>of his behavior? > >I don't. In fact, you seemed not to flinch at the idea of Kasparov providing the list of all possible board configurations. He understands chess therefore he would have/could create such a list? Hmmm. >Before the arrival of computers, the question would never have >been asked, everyone simply assumed that other people thought in the same >way. The problem of other minds has a slightly longer history than you think. >I can't open up Kasparov's head and have a look at his algorithms, >and until I can, I'll simply choose to give him the benefit of the doubt. >The question has more relevance, though, when applied to computers. >Fundamental problems in artificial intelligence are linked to questions >about understanding and interpretation. For these problems, brute-force >solutions just don't work, yet the human mind solves them without any >difficulty, often in a matter of seconds. IMO an understanding of what >"understanding" is will help us to produce algorithms which solve these >problems. No one is forcing you to use brute-force methods or trying to stop you from understanding how humans understand. But, when you do create an artificial intelligence, don't be surprised when some one peaks inside and says, "I don't think like that, your system doesn't understand, I don't care what it can do." >>---Paul... (P-K4, P-Q4 -- a Queen's gambit?!) >Fergal Toomey. Dean Hougen -- "god save the queen, she ain't no human bein'." - the Sex Pistols