Re:You might not need machine learning
by mjburgess on Tuesday November 24, 2020 @07:59AM
(#25198025)
I disagree.
We don't find these systems intelligent because, on inspection, they arent.
We are intelligent. Not "magically", but actually nevertheless.
Our intelligence, and that of dogs (, mice, etc.) consists in the ability to operate on partial models of environments; dynamically responsive to them; and to skilfully respond to changes in them.
This sort of intelligence requires the environment to physically reconstitue the animal in order to non-cognitively develop skills.
It is skillful action we are interested in; and precisely what I missing in naive rule-based models of congition.
Re:You might not need machine learning
by dmos62 on Tuesday November 24, 2020 @10:58AM
(#25199574)
You provided an illustration of "magic". It's important to realise that you don't need a complex algorithm to produce complex behaviour (see Stephen Wolfram and his work on cellular automata).
We don't find these systems intelligent because, on inspection, they arent.
We are intelligent. Not "magically", but actually nevertheless.
Our intelligence, and that of dogs (, mice, etc.) consists in the ability to operate on partial models of environments; dynamically responsive to them; and to skilfully respond to changes in them.
This sort of intelligence requires the environment to physically reconstitue the animal in order to non-cognitively develop skills.
It is skillful action we are interested in; and precisely what I missing in naive rule-based models of congition.