Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!yale!Krulwich-Bruce
From: Krulwich-Bruce@cs.yale.edu (Bruce Krulwich)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Capabilities of "logic machines" (was Re: Limits of AI)
Keywords: Intelligence
Message-ID: <42136@yale-celray.yale.UUCP>
Date: 3 Nov 88 18:40:30 GMT
References: <1651@ndsuvax.UUCP> <349@uceng.UC.EDU>
Sender: root@yale.UUCP
Reply-To: Krulwich-Bruce@cs.yale.edu (Bruce Krulwich)
Organization: Computer Science, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Lines: 55
In-reply-to: dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny)

In article <349@uceng.UC.EDU>, dmocsny@uceng (daniel mocsny) writes:
>Man can build physical mechanisms that can outperform his own physical
>work capacity by orders of magnitude. We can't even define intelligence,
>much less establish limits for it. I see no reason to doubt that he
>will oneday build a machine that is more intelligent than himself, unless
>the dualist view is correct (and physico-chemical mechanisms cannot
>account for intelligence). However, if you asked me ``Can Man build a
>_logic_ machine more intelligent than himself?'' I would laugh.

What do you consider to be a "logic machine" ??  You might mean any of:

	- A formal system based on axioms and inference rules
	- A rule-based system (ie, OPS)
	- A standard computer
	- Lots of other things

Which of these you mean determines the correctness of some of the things you
say below, such as:

>However, logic machines require explicit programming for the most trivial
>tasks.  They are not self-organizing nor adaptive. They do not learn from
>everyday experience in a generally useful way. As long as that is true they
>can never possess what we could reasonably call intelligence.

This is not necessarily true for any of the definitions of "logical machines"
that I gave above.  Can you give some more details about exactly what you're
saying??

>The connectionist approach to AI may succeed in creating machines that
>correct these glaring deficiencies of logic machines. If so, then in
>combination with logic machines they may create a hybrid intelligence that
>exceeds anything we have yet seen. Especially if that hybrid includes us.

If you're claiming that it's possible to do something with connectionist 
models that its not possible to do with "logical machines," you have to
define "logical machines" in such a way that they aren't capable of
simulating connectionist models.  

On the other hand, I think your claim is incorrect even if simulating
connectionist models on "logical machines" is ignored.

>In any case, discussing whether machines will exceed human intelligence
>is a bit premature, rather like arguing over how tall a redwood seedling
>might eventually become. Probably none of us will live to see the
>question settled, and the seedling has an enormous struggle ahead of
>it. Better to pay attention to nibbling away at subproblems...

While you're working away on your subproblem, you shouldn't ignore other
people's subproblems.  While I am the last person to question the validity 
of connectionist approaches to AI, it looks as if you are unfamiliar with 
any recent work in the more "classical" areas of AI (ie, machine learning, 
case based reasoning, etc).


Bruce Krulwich