Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!prls!pyramid!hplabs!hplabsc!taylor
From: taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (Dave Taylor)
Newsgroups: mod.comp-soc
Subject: Re: Common Sense and Expert Systems
Message-ID: <438@hplabsc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 10-Jul-86 20:45:48 EDT
Article-I.D.: hplabsc.438
Posted: Thu Jul 10 20:45:48 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 11-Jul-86 22:15:05 EDT
References: <429@hplabsc.UUCP>
Reply-To: hplabs!hpccc!mcgregor@hplabs.HP.COM
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories
Lines: 83
Approved: taylor@hplabs

This article is from hpccc!mcgregor@hplabs.HP.COM (Scott McGregor)
 and was received on Thu Jul 10 17:40:44 1986
 
>My point is this, I think it is intrinically impossible to program common
>sense because a computer is not a man. A computer cannot experience what man
>can; it cannot see or make ubiquitous judgements that man can.  We may be
>able to program common-sense like rules into it,but this is not tantamount
>to real world common sense because real world common sense is drawn from a
>'database' that could never be matched by a simulated one.


If I give you a set of 1000 constraints and and 800 variables and an
objective function to maximize,  I doubt that you could do as well in
an afternoon in selecting an optimal policy as any mainframe with
a passable linear programming package despite human "common sense".

You might say that the computer has understanding in that domain, as it
has the ability to predict optimal behavior under those circumstances
whereas you are not so good at doing so. You might consider this use
of "understanding" to be metaphorical, or literal depending on your
view of the difference in cognition amoung man and machines.

Most work, whether human or computer takes place in such limited "knowledge
domains".  In a good many of them there is the potential to put together
a good database of "common sense" for that limited problem domain.
The remarkable thing about humans is that they 1) operate reasonably
competently in a LARGE number of these domains, and 2) they are pretty
good at indentifying the boundaries between different domains. (Humans
seem good at choosing the data and tools that are and are not useful for
for solving problems in differing domains).

Programs need not support such breadth in problem domain to be useful.
I know when to use a linear program, and when to use a word processor and
it doesn't bother me that they are different programs with different domains
of expertise.  Also note that a computer may run many of these
programs just as I do both mathematics and writing.  But I might
even be willing to have separate computers for separate tasks (I already
have separate microprocessors controlling my microwave oven, my sprinkler
system, and my outdoor lighting).

The fact that a computer program is not and cannot be a human being is true.
But it is also a tautology.  It is a tool to be domesticated, just as
horses and cows, and steam engines and internal combustion engines are.
The computer has the potential to make contributions in a great many
more areas than anything we have ever domesticated before. That might
tempt us to argue (out of fear of inferiority?) that it can never equal/replace
humans in all their diverse tasks.  But this is really a straw argument--
who would want that to happen?  No one.  What people want, I think,
is to have access to information and advice on their own terms -- when
they want it, at a low cost, and in a seemingly objective manner.

Today people turn to magazines like Consumer Reports and Money for information
on how to spend their money.  They may also turn to stock brokers,
bankers, and other investment specialists.  But these people are only
accessable at certain times.  They charge expensive commisions. And
each one has their own biases (maybe the banker advises to put your
money in CDs, the broker says put it in stocks). An investment program
limited in its knowledge area might be a useful improvement for some
people over these specialists and magazines.  It doesn't matter if
the investment program doesn't know anything about traffic laws or
flying a plane (that's what Flight Simulator is for).

People arguing about the inability of computers to "experience" the world as
we do need to explain what that means.  Does the brain experience blue
in the same way as the eye does?  The physical mechanisms that take place
in the eye are certainly different than those in the brain. Is it even
meaningful to discuss experiences of the senses as opposed to the brain,
or does "experiencing" take place in a larger system that encompasses
both (mind?). To what extent are the human senses vital to what it means to
experience (e.g. is a blind person less human because they cannot
perceive 'blue').  Now distinguish the human mental system from a
system in which humans (at keyboards, etc.) and instruments are the
sensors (senses), and displays, and printers, and robot arms are the
motor network, and the 'brain' is composed of a computer and its human
generated software.  Maybe it is foolish to speak of the computer "brain"
as "experiencing". It might be more sensible to talk about the
organization, factory, or whatever name we give to the combination of
humans, computers and supporting devices, as being the locus of the
"understanding" that is not within any of these individual components alone.

    Scott McGregor
    {hplabs, hpfcla, hpcea, hpisla, hpl-opus}!hpccc!mcgregor
    HP Corporate Computing Center