Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cornell!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!cadre!geb From: geb@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU (Gordon E. Banks) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: letter to THE NEW YORK REVIEW concerning AI Keywords: Intention Message-ID: <2369@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU> Date: 2 Mar 89 16:25:04 GMT References: <7471@venera.isi.edu> <2447@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <509@mmlai.UUCP> <2481@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> Reply-To: geb@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu (Gordon E. Banks) Organization: Decision Systems Lab., Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA. Lines: 21 In article <2481@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) writes: >The problem with AI-based systems is the lack of any facility for determining when >they do not understand something. When they do not "know" is a different issue. > >The upshot is that a responsible AI-based system is impossible. Responsibility must >lie with the programmers. > >How many AI programmers would take responsibility for anything they programmed? > I think we argued about his before, but would your objection also apply to neural networks? The "programming" here comes in the form of training, in many cases. The system can be said to "understand" how to do something (say, a robot that spots for a gymnast) when it performs correctly under supervision by someone who "understands" correct performance. Or do you not consider this AI? The robot's brain could certainly have some notion of whether it was doing well even if it needed feedback from its trainer, which could constitute responsibility. P.S. Your terminal must have more than 80 character lines. All of your postings seem to have lines that wrap around.