Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 40 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
Exclusive to OpEd News:
Sci Tech    H4'ed 2/10/18

Daily Inspiration — Artificial Intelligence: A Reality Check

By       (Page 1 of 1 pages)   2 comments, In Series: Daily Inspiration
Follow Me on Twitter     Message Josh Mitteldorf
Become a Fan
  (53 fans)

Is there a qualitative difference between understanding and manipulation of symbols? Humans (and animals) are natural champs at the former, while most humans (who might have been flustered by 8th grade algebra) have trouble with the latter. Computers have gotten quite good at faking understanding by manipulating symbols. They can do algebra and calculus so much faster and more reliably than humans that theoretical physicists operate on a different level than when I was in school 30 years ago.

In this month's Atlantic, Douglas Hofstadter does a thorough (and amusing) job of illustrating the difference between symbol manipulation and understanding. The reason that Google Translate is useful is not that it produces even workmanlike translations, but that we supply human intelligence at the back end to make sense of its output.

"One swallow does not a summer make."
"One swallow does not a thirst quench."

The word "swallow" has two different meanings that have nothing to do with one another. Google Translate hasn't a clue.

Even the least articulate native speaker dips into the art of language in ways that stymie the most sophisticated AI programs now available. When you hear "a heap of bull" your mind automatically fills in the four-letter word that was omitted for the sake of polite society. The unwashed AI program tries to conjure a bevy of bovines.

For the present, we can agree that AI is taking shortcuts that produce impressive demonstrations, but a little probing reveals glaring shortcomings. What about the future?

The prevailing view, which Hofstadter reiterates, is that understanding is in principle something that computers can do, but that a huge database of facts about the world needs to be available, with all appropriate associations.

The more radical view is that human minds are doing something qualitatively different from what a computer can ever possibly do. Many laypeople come to this view from common sense. But in the elite world of mathematical philosophers, the only prominent thinker who defends it is Roger Penrose.

(Image by
  Details   DMCA

Rate It | View Ratings

Josh Mitteldorf Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Josh Mitteldorf, de-platformed senior editor at OpEdNews, blogs on aging at Read how to stay young at
Educated to be an astrophysicist, he has branched out from there (more...)

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Follow Me on Twitter     Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Twitter Bans The Donald

Cold Fusion: Tangible Hope in an Age of Despair

Artificial Earthquakes

New Scientific Study: Smoking Gun Evidence of 9/11 Explosives in WTC Dust

PayPal cuts off Bradley Manning Legal Defense; Backs Off under Grass Roots Pressure

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend