Xref: utzoo comp.ai:2708 talk.philosophy.misc:1626 Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!gatech!mcnc!ece-csc!ncrcae!ncrlnk!uunet!mcvax!ukc!strath-cs!glasgow!gilbert From: gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) Newsgroups: comp.ai,talk.philosophy.misc Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence and Intelligence Message-ID: <1976@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> Date: 26 Nov 88 10:56:57 GMT References: <484@soleil.UUCP> <1654@hp-sdd.HP.COM> <1908@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <1791@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU> <819@novavax.UUCP> Reply-To: gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) Organization: Comp Sci, Glasgow Univ, Scotland Lines: 122 In article <819@novavax.UUCP> maddoxt@novavax.UUCP (Thomas Maddox) writes: >However, if like Cockton you restrict the >possibilities of acquisition of intelligence to social situations, Intelligence is a social construct. The meaning of the word is defined through interaction. Dictionary definitions are irrelevant, and certainly never accurate or convincing. I have keep referring to the arguments against (or grounds for failure of) the C18 encyclopadists. Dictionaries arose in the enlightenment as well. Diderot, amongst others, recognised that the impossibility of prescribing meaning was a major obstacle, if not an unavoidable barrier, to the encyclopaedic endeavour. If dictionaries were only meant as spelling aids, there was less of a problem here. Since AI is just Diderot on disc, arguments against the C18 encyclopaedists, apart from being more convincing than the encyclopaedists' case, are also highly relevant today. Someone mailed me with the ignorant comment that C18 philosophy was adolescent and whiggishly outdated by modern developments. Is it hell. Read before you wallow in ignorance. Wittgenstein however backs up much of the case against the encyclopaedists. His arguments on the centrality of practice to knowledge and meaning rule out a logocentric theory of truth. I regard all symbol systems as effectively logocentric. Intelligence can only be acquired in social situations, since its presence is only acknowledged in social situations. The meanings are fluid, and will only be accepted (or contested) by humans in social contexts. AI folk can do what they want, but no one will ever buy their distortions, nor can they ever have any grounds for convincement in this case. What I am saying is that you cannot prove anything in this case by writing programs. Unlike sociology, they are irrelevant. You can stick any process you like in a computer, but its intelligence is a a matter for human negotiation. It may seem smart at first, but after a few days use in a real task? (ho, ho, ho - ever seen that with an AI program? - Prospector does seem to have done well, so no quibbles here. Anything else though? Also, even Prospector's domain restricted, unlike smart humans. AI cannot prove anything here. It can try to convince (but doesn't because of a plague of mutes), but the judgement is with the wider public, not the self-satisfied insiders. Now brave freedom fighter against the tyranny of hobbyhorses, show me my circular reasoning? linhart@topaz.rutgers.edu (Phil) writes in > The gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) writes (jokingly?): > -=> Cos you can't take a computer, not even the just truly awesomest > -=> nooral network ever, to see the ducks, get it to throw them bread, > -=> etc, etc. Not completely jokingly, just a less direct European style. There was a serious point in there, but the etc. etc. marked out my feeling that full elaboration was unnecessary. I'll try to sum up in a more direct manner for SAT level literacy :-) (but really, it's a question of styles across cultures, which is ironic, for those cultures which understand irony that is!) Until a machine can share in socialisation, as a normal human, it will not be able to match the best human capabilities for any task. Thus > a blind paraplegic. does suffer some disadvantages, but for reasons which I cannot comprehend, but wonder at, such an individual can still get a lot out of life. This presence of humanity in the face of gross disability (or in the face of cruel oppression, e.g. U.S. slavery), is, for me, further proof that a mechanistic or biological account of being is going to miss out on the fundamentals of being. I'd still take a blind paraplegic to see the ducks. Even though they couldn't see, they could hear. Even though they can't throw, they might drop. If not, I'd throw for them. > If a computer can launch a missile, then surely it can launch a crust > of bread. Why, it'd be like shooting ducks in a pond... :-) And I don't think for one minute your machine you reflect on the morality of its action, as a group of children would. (no :-)) > Human intelligence is the example, not the definition. Example for what? I need to see more of the argument, but this already looks a healthier position than some in AI. > ( The smiley may have applied to the whole message, seeing as how the > poster works in a CS department. Think before you flame. ) This is Britain. You will find a range of people working in CS departments. As part of the Alvey programme, HCI research was expanded in the UK. You'll find sociologists, historians, fine artists, literature graduates, philosophers and educationalists working in CS departments here, as well as psychologists and ergonomists. As part of the Alvey HCI programme, technical specialists HAVE come in (perhaps unfairly at times) for a lot of flack over the way they design (on a good day) computer systems. No need to think before I flame, as we don't expect blind dormitory brotherhood loyalty over here. This is a university, not a regiment. HCI isn't about automating everything (the AI mania), it's about improved use of computers, whatever the level of technology. The CS contribution is on the construction of programs. Robust and verifiable programs are a major requirement for improved interaction, but this alone will not significantly stop the problems of misuse, disuse and abuse associated with poorly designed human-computer systems. Good code bricklayers and engineers will design good walls, but they will rarely make it to a habitable building, and even then never by intent. I talk of roles here of course, not individuals. Some good CS trained code brickies are also sensitive to human issues, and effectively so. Many of the non-CS graduates in UK HCI research also happen to be good code brickies as well. To build habitable systems, you need technical *AND* human skills. There are two roles, and you can fill them with one or many people. Both roles MUST be filled though. AI rarely fills either. CS needs taking down a peg on some issues (largely ones it ignores when it cannot, and thus does not), so there's no worry about righteous indignation from the unbigoted. -- Gilbert Cockton, Department of Computing Science, The University, Glasgow gilbert@uk.ac.glasgow.cs !ukc!glasgow!gilbert