Structure of AI (was: Re: [extropy-chat] COMP: Distributed Computing)

[Rik van Riel]

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004, J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
> On Nov 20, 2004, at 10:12 AM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > Based on what I understand, intelligence appears to be based
> > on information processing and communication, not computation.
>
> As a technical nit, I challenge you to define "information processing",
> "communication", and "computation" such that they are truly distinct
> entities in some kind of rigorous fashion.

Mmmm, the only easily understandable way in which I can
explain the difference is by pointing out where the
bottlenecks are in each paradigm.

With computation, the bottleneck is the CPU, or how fast
calculations can be performed inside some relativel small
components.

With information processing, the bottleneck is how fast
an entity can go over all the information it has, finding
patterns and correlating data, quite possibly in computationally
simple ways.

Communication I would define as how fast different logical
entities can exchange information between them.

> > Mmm, maybe I should check around, to see if AI research is
> > still thinking in terms of programming, or more in terms of
> > processing data ...
>
> Most AI research is still thinking in terms of computation, or at the
> very least they view computational power as the limit on intelligence.
> If you look at the models used by most researchers, you can see why
> they might come to that conclusion.

It's also a language thing.  Both computer languages and
natural languages tend to be formed around the paradigm
of processing identifyable objects.

In most computer languages, you instruct the computer to
inflict a number of (complex) transformations on a piece
of data.  In natural language, you describe what happens
to objects, and who does what.

I'm not sure either set of languages is suitable for
introspection into the process of intelligence.

Rik
-- 
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan