Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!peregrine!elroy!ames!nrl-cmf!cmcl2!rutgers!uwvax!uwslh!lishka
From: lishka@uwslh.UUCP (Fish-Guts)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Defining Machine Intelligence.
Message-ID: <405@uwslh.UUCP>
Date: 22 Nov 88 19:40:41 GMT
References: <484@soleil.UUCP> <4216@homxc.UUCP> <401@uwslh.UUCP> <1111@dukeac.UUCP> <404@uwslh.UUCP> <713@quintus.UUCP>
Reply-To: lishka@uwslh.UUCP (Fish-Guts)
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison, State Hygiene Lab
Lines: 98

In article <713@quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes:
>In article <404@uwslh.UUCP> lishka@uwslh.UUCP (Fish-Guts) writes:
>
>I think it is useful to bear in mind that "intelligence" is a _social_
>construct.  We can identify particular characters which are associated
>with it, and we may be able to measure those.  (For example, one of the
>old intelligence tests identified knowing that Crisco (sp?) is a cooking
>oil as a component of intelligence.)  It is _NOT_ the responsibility of
>AI people to define "human intelligence".  It is the job of sociologists
>to determine how the notion of "intelligence" is deployed in various
>cultures, and of psychologists to study whatever aspects turn out to be
>based on mental characteristics of the individual.

     Yes, there will never be one "correct" measure of intelligence.
I am *not* proposing that AI people define "human intelligence."
However, in light of the fact that many AI people want to make
"intelligent" machines, I feel there should be some form of definition
or criteria for defining "artificial" or "machine" intelligence.

>The field called "Machine Intelligence" or "Artificial Intelligence" is
>something which originated in a particular related group of cultures and
>took the "folk" notion of "intelligence" as its starting point.  We wave
>our hands a bit, and say "you know how smart people are, and how dumb
>machines are, well, we want to make machines smarter."  At some point we
>will declare victory, and whatever we have at that point, _that_ will be
>the definition of "machine intelligence".  ("Intelligent" is already used
>to mean "able to perform the operations of a computer", so is "smart" in
>the phrase "smart card".)

     Unfortunately, there is already some of this going around.
I have heard claims that "Expert Systems" and "Chess Programs" embody
true intelligence in machines (usually by people who do not understand
the insides of the systems); I refuse to believe these claims.  Some
people used to think that the program "Eliza" (or "Doctor") was
"intelligent."  There are many programs sold on the market that claim
to use "Artificial Intelligence," in order to sell more copies.
Without some sort of objective criteria, it is rather hard to decide
that something is "Artificially Intelligent"; this seems to be the
basis for test such as "the Turing Test."  I am only arguing for a
*common* definition among AI researchers, so at least they can agree
(at some fairly basic level) what it is they are doing.

>Let's face it, 13th century philosophers didn't have a definition of "mass",
>"potential field", "tensor", or even "hadron" when they started out trying
>to make sense of motion.  They used the ordinary language they had.  The
>definitions came _last_.

     However, I would assume that 13th century philosophers had not
named their field yet.  AI researchers, on the other hand, have
adopted the name "Artificial Intelligence" without having a common
definition.  We should not be using the label if we cannot define it.
Maybe the solution, then, is to throw the name away, and use a
different label (something less pretentious than "Artificial
Intelligence").  However, since many people in the field seem to be
aiming towards true "machine intelligence," we may as well define the
term and use it (IMHO).

>There are at least two approaches to AI, which may be caricatured as
>(1) "Let's build a god"
>(2) "Let's build amplifiers for the mind"
>I belong to the second camp:  I don't give a Continental whether we end
>up with "machine intelligences" or not, just so long as we end up with
>cognitive tools which are far more intelligible to humans than what we
>have now.

     There is at least one more approach as well:

(3) "Let's build a machine that can reason about its surroundings,
     and is aware of itself and its relation to the surrounding
     environment"

This machine does not have to be a God, and it does not need to
amplify our minds.  Instead, it can have "intelligence" that is unique
to itself, and may be able to perform types of reasoning which are
completely foreign to human beings (and it may not! ;-).  I see the
relationship of humans to this sort of machine as being the same sort
as the relationship between humans and other animals: different ways
of thinking (probably) and different ways of looking at the world.  Of
course there would be some differences.  I am of this third group.

>We are still close enough to the beginnings of AI (whatever that is) that
>both camps can pursue their goals by similar means, and have useful things
>to say to each other, but don't confuse them!

     Good advice.  Each area of study has its benefits and drawbacks;
I think that each area can learn from the other, and have held this
view for quite a while.  But this is true of all forms of science and
other areas (such as religion) as well, IMHO.

				.oO Chris Oo.
-- 
Christopher Lishka                 ...!{rutgers|ucbvax|...}!uwvax!uwslh!lishka
Wisconsin State Lab of Hygiene                   lishka%uwslh.uucp@cs.wisc.edu
Immunology Section  (608)262-1617                            lishka@uwslh.uucp

		 "I'm not aware of too many things...
		  I know what I know if you know what I mean"
		    -- Edie Brickell & the New Bohemians