Dear Fellow Scholars, this is Two Minute Papers with Károly Zsolnai-Fehér.
Whether a technique can be deemed as artificial intelligence or not, is a question that I
would like to see exiled from future debates and argumentations. Of course, anyone may
take part in any debate of their liking, I would, however, like to point out the futility
of such endeavors. Let me explain why.
Ever heard a parent and a son having an argument whether the son is an adult or not?
"You are not an adult, because adults don't behave like this!" And arguments like that.
The argument is not really about whether a person is an adult, but it is about the very
definition of an adult.
Do we define an adult as someone who has common sense and behaves responsibly? Or is it enough
to be of 18 or 21 years old to be an adult?
If we decide which definition we go for, the scaffolding for the entire argument crumbles,
because it is built upon a term for which the definition is not agreed upon.
I feel that we have it the same with artificial intelligence in many debates.
The definition of artificial intelligence, or at least one possible definition, is the
following: Artificial intelligence (AI) is the intelligence
exhibited by machines or software.
It is a bit of a copout, so we have to go and check the definition of intelligence.
There are multiple definitions, but for the sake of argument, we are going to let this
one slip.
One possible definition for intelligence is "the ability to learn or understand things
or to deal with new or difficult situations".
Now, this sentence is teeming with ill-defined terms, such as learn, understand things, deal
with new situations, difficult situations.
So, if we have a shaky definition of artificial intelligence, it is quite possibly pointless
to argue whether self driving cars can be deemed artificially intelligent or not. Imagine
two physicists arguing whether a material is ferromagnetic, but none of them has the
slightest idea what magnetism means. If we look at it like this, it is very easy
to see the futility of such arguments. If we had as poorly crafted definitions in physics
as we have for intelligence, magnetism would be defined as "stuff pulling on other stuff".
This is the first part of the argument.
The second part is that artificial intelligence is imagined to be a mystical thing that only
exists in the future, or it may exist in the present, but it has to be shrouded in mystery.
Let me give you an example. The A* algorithm used to be called AI and was (and still is)
widely taught in AI courses at many universities. A* is used in many pathfinding situations
where we seek to go from A to B on a map in the presence of possible obstacles. It is
widely used in robotics and computer games.
Nowadays, calling a pathfinding algorithm AI is simply preposterous. It is a simple,
well-understood technique that does something we are used to.
Imagine someone waving their GPS device claiming that there is AI in there.
But back then, when it was new, hazy, and poorly understood, we put it in a drawer with
the label "AI" on it. As soon as people start to understand it, they pull it out from this
drawer, and disgustedly claim, "Well, this is not AI, it's just a graph algorithm.
Graphs are not AI, that's just mathematics." It is important to note that none of the
techniques that we see today are mysterious in any sense, the entirety of deep learning
and everything else is a series of carefully prescribed mathematical operations.
I will try to briefly assess the two arguments: - Arguments about AI are not about the algorithms
they seem to be discussing, but about the very definition of AI, which is ill-defined
at best. - AI is imagined to be a mystical thing that
only exists in the future, or it may exist in the present, but it has to be, in some
way, shrouded in mystery.
The good news is that using this knowledge, we can easily defuse such futile arguments.
If someone says that deep learning is not artificial intelligence because all it does
is matrix algebra, we can ask: "okay, what is your definition of artificial intelligence?"
If this person defines AI as being a sentient learning being akin to humans, then we have
immediately arrived to a conclusion that deep learning is not AI.
Let us not fool ourselves by thinking that we are arguing about things when we are simply
arguing about definitions. As soon as the definition is agreed upon, the conclusion
emerges effortlessly.
Thanks for watching, and for your generous support, and I'll see you next time!