Introduction* (Symbolic) A. I. A rtificial I ntelligence If we can “make”/design intelligence, we ca 1). Build incredibly powerful technology 2). Understand intelligence Practical Scientific Aims A.I: ksander & Piers Burnett (1987): “Thinking machines: the search for a intelligence”. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
18
Embed
Introduction* (Symbolic) A. I. A rtificial I ntelligence If we can “make”/design intelligence, we can: 1). Build incredibly powerful technology 2). Understand.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Introduction* (Symbolic) A. I.
Artificial Intelligence
If we can “make”/design intelligence, we can:
1). Build incredibly powerful technology
2). Understand intelligence
Practical
Scientific
Aims A.I:
•Igor Aleksander & Piers Burnett (1987): “Thinking machines: the search for artificial intelligence”. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
PROBLEM: How do we know that we designedsomething "intelligent“ ?
Definition-problem
But how do you know that
“something is understood”
by someone other than yourself?
Intelligence:Something to do with “understanding”
Performance of“intelligent behaviour”
What about a machine that behaves AS IF it is intelligent?
Critical reply: That “intelligence” reflects the design of its creator (machines: the engineer animals: God or Genes)
• Refute: Then ants have a mind: understand situation and consciously solve problems• Accept: Animals are dumb machines and just follow genetically programmed instruction Where do we draw the line?
Nest building in birds; beavers making a dam, we building a house?
IF behaviour of machines/animals has nothing to do withintelligence How then should a truly intelligent “entity” understand ?
In the same way as we
But how do we understand?Is our intelligence a sufficient basis for understandingintelligence ?
Is the brain capable of providing an explanation for itself?
“Intelligent Behaviour”
Problem Solving
Is a thermostat intelligent ? “Solves” the “problem” of temperature regulation
but does it have a “mind”?
Can machines (animals) dothis?
Does it use Knowledge
and Reasoning
Relation between “Mind”,“Knowledge” and “Reasoning”goes back to Greek philosophy
In itself insufficient.Psychology:
knowledge-independent tests(“G”: IQ)
“That what can be thought is identical to that what is”
Illusory!A stick put partly under water looksbroken, but isn’t
The only science is about that what IS(“ontogeny”)
“Truth” is that what always IS
Parmenides of Elea (5th century BC)
Power of Reason as seat of Knowledge, instead of sensory perception
UnchangeableBeing instead of BecomingStatic instead of Dynamic
Knowledge is beyonddirect physical experience:
META-PHYSICS
The universe is ordered following laws of reason
Human mind discovers that physical experienceis insufficient to explain the “reality”
After “naïve realism”: DOUBT
Metaphysics: thinking about “being” beyond perception
Two observers “see” one and the same oak in a different way.However, both agree about what they see is an oak
The “objective Oak-in-itself”
The oak we see is an instantiation of the “object oak”Which in turn belongs to the “class” of “trees”
Plato (427-347 BC).
What we see are imperfect projections of idealintelligible objects.An individual tree as we perceive it is non-generic and cannot be defined, but the ideal “tree” can!
How to study the world of ideas?When reason is the principled way of knowing (meta physics),then we should study the rules of reasoning
perfect,unchangeable
Aristotle (384-322 BC)
Formal LogicTool that results in knowledge about
that what isLater: decoupledfrom platonic idealism
Parmenides: Don’t believe your eyes, but: What one thinks, is (one cannot think about something that is not)
First truth: It is
Things can be known only when they are
Descartes: Starts from the subject instead of the object
What is undeniable in thinking is I am
(one cannot think when one is not)
Cogito ergo sum
To find truth: Whatever could be doubted should be rejected What remains: something that doubts (me)
Still meta-physics! But focus is on epistemology instead of on ontology
The correct way to obtainknowledge (by reasoning = ratio)
Reasoning is beyond perception:Mind-Body Dualism
Because of doubt, Descartes does not accept the obviousnessof his own senses
What did Descartes think about behaviour ?
1) If automatons had the shape of animals*,we should have no means of knowing that they did not possess the same nature as animals
2) If automatons perfectly imitated actions ofanimals*, we would be in no doubt that animalswere automatons too
* that lack reason
Behaviour can be understood mechanistically
Can machines be intelligent ?
Turing (1950)
Intelligence can be understood as computation
If a computer perfectly imitated answers ofhumans, we should have no means of knowing that it did not possess the same intelligence as humans
BUT: When a computer “does” something in the way we do it, does it also understand what it is doing in the same way as we do?
Daniel Dennett: If a computer behaves as if it tries to win a game of chess, it is meaningless to ask whether it really wants to win
“Intentional Stance”
John Searle (1980, 1987): The Chinese Room
Give an English person a Chinese story + detailed instructions in English how to manipulate the characters, she will provide answers in Chinese characters about the story (even when she doesn’t understand a WORD of it!!)
Intentionality: “Knowing what it is about”
Allows Empathy: words recall visions and feelings
How to describe unknown, newly encountered thingswithout referring to known objects?
Intentionality is based on the ability to build internal representations Sensory
Perception
Do Machines need Complicated Sensors to build Internal Representations
?
A.I.: NO Pre-processed versions of real world manifestations suffice
Just tell the machine what it needs to know to carry out its task
We can plan a trip (to an unknown area) by just using a map
A “mental map” suffices
SYMBOLS&
SYMBOLPROCESSING
… but then you need the ability to interpret symbols
AND: only in a very limited number of cases you can “pre-pack reality”
in “Models”
and use these to execute meaningful behaviour
f.i. mathematical equations
Relationships between symbolsto represent (in)equalities, functions etcetera
s 0
s t + t
t t + t
t
s t
s t + t – s t = s
F o r v e r y s m a l l t ( t 0 = d t ) :
ttanconss)t('sdt
)t(ds
t
slim 0t
= v e l o c i t y
C H A N G E i n D i s t a n c e =s t + t – s t = s
C H A N G E / U n i t T i m e =
ttanconstgt
s
C H A N G E i n D i s t a n c e =s t + t – s t = s
C H A N G E / U n i t T i m e =
ttanconstgt
s
S t r a i g h t l i n e e q u a t i o n f o r t h e g r a p h a b o v e : s ( t ) = v t
v ( t )
tv 0
v ( t ) = a . t + v 0 ( 2 )
S i m i l a r a s t o s ( t ) :
v)t(vdt
)t(dv
t
vvlim ttt
0t
c o n s t a n t
a c c e l e r a t i o n
= s u r f a c e u n d e r t r i a n g u l a r p a r t = h e i g h t ½ b a s i s= [ v ( t ) – v 0 ] ½ t= [ ( a t + v 0 ) – v 0 ] ½ t = ½ a t 2
P L U Ss u r f a c e o f r e c t a n g u l a r p a r t = v 0 t
s ( t ) i s t h e s u r f a c e u n d e r t h e c u r v e = v ( t ) d t
v ( t )
t
v 0
+
s ( t ) = v 0 t + ½ a t 2
= s u r f a c e u n d e r t r i a n g u l a r p a r t = h e i g h t ½ b a s i s= [ v ( t ) – v 0 ] ½ t= [ ( a t + v 0 ) – v 0 ] ½ t = ½ a t 2
P L U Ss u r f a c e o f r e c t a n g u l a r p a r t = v 0 t
s ( t ) i s t h e s u r f a c e u n d e r t h e c u r v e = v ( t ) d t
v ( t )
t
v 0
+
s ( t ) = v 0 t + ½ a t 2
s ( t ) i s t h e s u r f a c e u n d e r t h e c u r v e = v ( t ) d t
v ( t )
t
v 0
+
s ( t ) = v 0 t + ½ a t 2
From classical (Newtonian) Kinematics
ARE WE REALLY DOING THIS IN OUR HEAD
WHEN ACCELERATING OUR CAR?
Even a mathematician doesn’tsolve equations when playing
tennis
When a child catches a ball it is NOT solving equations
It learns to do this by: • better muscle control• improved motor abilities• experience
Induction instead of Deduction
Now try a computer (or a robot running on software) getting this done …