Comment author:KatjaGrace
16 September 2014 01:19:55AM
2 points
[-]
Common sense and natural language understanding are suspected to be 'AI complete'. (p14) (Recall that 'AI complete' means 'basically equivalent to solving the whole problem of making a human-level AI')
Comment author:mvp9
16 September 2014 01:35:33AM
1 point
[-]
Depends on the criteria we place on "understanding." Certainly an AI may act in a way that invite us to attribute 'common sense' to it in some situations, without solving the 'whole problem." Watson would seem to be a case in point - apparently demonstrating true language understanding within a broad, but still strongly circumscribed domain.
Even if we take "language understanding" in the strong sense (i.e. meaning native fluency, including ability for semantic innovation, things like irony, etc), there is still the question of phenomenal experience: does having such an understanding entail the experience of such understanding - self-consciousness, and are we concerned with that?
I think that "true" language understanding is indeed "AI complete", but in a rather trivial sense that to match a competent human speaker one needs to have most of the ancillary cognitive capacities of a competent human.
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Common sense and natural language understanding are suspected to be 'AI complete'. (p14) (Recall that 'AI complete' means 'basically equivalent to solving the whole problem of making a human-level AI')
Do you think they are? Why?
Depends on the criteria we place on "understanding." Certainly an AI may act in a way that invite us to attribute 'common sense' to it in some situations, without solving the 'whole problem." Watson would seem to be a case in point - apparently demonstrating true language understanding within a broad, but still strongly circumscribed domain.
Even if we take "language understanding" in the strong sense (i.e. meaning native fluency, including ability for semantic innovation, things like irony, etc), there is still the question of phenomenal experience: does having such an understanding entail the experience of such understanding - self-consciousness, and are we concerned with that?
I think that "true" language understanding is indeed "AI complete", but in a rather trivial sense that to match a competent human speaker one needs to have most of the ancillary cognitive capacities of a competent human.