|
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maria asked:
|
|
This is a research I'm doing for a project:
|
|
How is philosophy connected to artificial intelligence? There are many connections I know. But apart
from the religious connection that we are partly playing god when trying to create a human mind, I
don't quite understand the philosophical issue on cognition and intelligence.
|
|
============
|
|
One very interesting story about philosophy and AI is this. In the 1970s, many AI researchers were
making grand claims about how AI would within a few years lead to computers that were smarter than
humans, and which would be able to do virtually anything a human could do — especially in things
like understanding natural language, recognizing people, diagnosing diseases and so on.
|
|
Bert Dreyfus, an American philosopher, wrote a book at the time that drew on Heidegger's account of
what it is to live in the world to claim that computers which followed the methods of AI at the time (and
which are still being used a good deal) would never be able to become as intelligent as human
beings. The book was called What computers can't do.He was derided for this view — a mere
philosopher trying to tell the experts their own job. He turns out to be right, and had the satisfaction of
publishing an updated version of the book called What computers still can't doabout 20 years later.
The moral of the story is that, if we want to make artificial intelligence, we had better sort out what
natural intelligence is like first, and that is at least in part a philosophical task.
|
|
Tim Sprod
|
|