<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><o:p> </o:p></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>AI hipsters among us perhaps you can offer guidance on an insight, where I can learn more, etc.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>We have some common software paradigms the computer science people study in college, with the usual list which was known back when I was in college, the one I remembered using the mnemonic IF-POODLES:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Imperative<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Functional<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Procedural<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Object Oriented<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Declarative<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Logic Executable<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Symbolic<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Then the engineering students were taught the Imperative paradigm in the form of FORTRAN 77 and sent off to work a hopeless 9 to 5 until dead. The rest of it was the domain of those ethereal ivory-tower computer scientists who were introduced to the other six common paradigms and sent off to work a hopeful 9 to 5 until they retired wealthy at age 40.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Well, sometimes it worked that way, but in any case, for some time I have thought that our fondest AI notions were still somehow missing a paradigm, that none of these usual suspects were adequate for making the kinds of inferences we think of as intelligence. For instance, consider the following short passage:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>“Last call, drink up!” rose above the din. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>“Do you have any particular specialty?” <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>“Indeed madam: gynecology, sub-specialty maximally invasive procedures.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>OK there you have three short sentences which allow the reader to infer a lot of information: boozy schmoozy singles bar, quarter to 2am, guy who may or may not be a doctor putting the moves on some open-minded maiden who appears receptive.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Is that approximately what you read from it? Note that the passage doesn’t say a word (directly) with regard to the time, the profession, the setting, but we can figure out what is going on there, even if we have no direct first hand experience (I have never been in a boozy-schmoozy bar (never mind still awake at closing time (but I read about it.))) <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Thought experiment: take a collection of 40 yr olds, give them all IQ tests and remove everyone who scored over 85. Now take a bunch of 10 yr olds, IQ test, remove all who score below about 115. OK two groups: dumb adults and smart kids, give them math and reading tests. The smart kids (as a group) generally outperform the dumb adults. Agree?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>OK now show both of them the Last Call passage. Nearly all the dumb adults know what is going on there and almost none of the book-smart kids do.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>OK so what is the difference between the groups that allows the book-dumb adults to easily see what the book-smart kids do not? The grown-ups can make inferences, based on experience. The kids lack the necessary experience.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>So if we are to get AI to ever achieve the I, we need to somehow give them experience. They cannot effectively infer anything without experience, regardless of how advanced their computing skill. We need an eighth programming paradigm I will call Inference-enabled. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>In order to enable inference, we need to give the AI experience, and the only experience we have to offer is our own, which means the AI would need to learn all the human foibles we have so long struggled and mostly failed to overcome, such as… well, do I really need to offer a list of human foibles? <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>This line of reasoning leads me to the discouraging conclusion that even if we manage to create inference-enabled software, we would need to train it by having it read our books (how else? What books?) and if so, it would become as corrupt as we are. The AI we can create would then be like us only more so.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Damn. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>spike<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>