In my readings for my thesis I came across a joke which is doubly funny when applied to the philosophy of artificial intelligence. I plan on explaining why this is the case afterwards, so be prepared to not find it funny in about five minutes. So hear it goes:
A man is about to get married and decides to go in and buy himself a tuxedo. Not having a whole lot of money, he goes to the cheapest tailor he can find. So after paying for everything he puts on his terribly fitting suit. He tries to complain to the tailor but the tailor just tells him the suit is fine, it's the mans terrible posture that's ruining things. The tailor instructs the man to bend over a little and stop bending his knee so much when he walks and to hold his arm a little bit more like so, and sends the man on his way. Walking down the street like this, a passerby says to a friend "Isn't that the most unfortunate case of physical deformity you've ever seen?" The friend replies "Yeah, but the suit fits nice".
Now this is funny. For reasons I hope are clear because I'd hate to ruin the simple level at which this joke works (though I'm still willing to sacrifice the deeper level at the drop of a hat). The deeper funniness has to do with a few different concepts of Artificial Intelligence: substrate dependence being the one I'm going to go into (out of want to not overwhelm anyone).
So basically, to get why an AI nerd, such as myself would find this funny I need to tell you about a longstanding debate between the two sects of AI theory.
In the red corner is Good Ol' Fashion AI or Strong AI. These guys are the ones who think that we should make human machines who fulfill their function in the same way humans do. In the blue corner you have New Fangled AI or weak AI. These guys think that AI should be focused on creating any functioning intelligent systems, regardless of whether or not they resemble, at the command level, organic intelligent systems, so long as the outcome is positive.
For example, in the article where I read the joke the first time, the author(s) were discussing a super computer that played chess. Organic systems (people) use a cognitive ability called chunking to pick up patterns in chess arrangements. The super computer did not use this technique. Instead it prioritized "smart" moves and looked 14 to 15 moves ahead and used a complex algorithm to choose the best path. Doing this got that super computer to an expert chess grandmaster level who trailed by two hundred or so points behind the number one ranked chess player in the world. This is a weak AI system because it doesn't seek to perform the task as a person would. The strong AI system did not have the computing abilities and tendency to simplify that the weak AI system did and achieved a score of about 700 (half that of the weak AI system) though it performed complex pattern recognition.
Now for the joke (yeah, there was a joke before, remember?). So, in light of the above paragraph we can see the joke in metaphor. For a proponent of weak AI, you have a lousy tailor who represents strong AI proponents who are forcing their penniless grooms of AI systems into poorly constructed constraints that do little to fit how the AI system best operates. And though you can compliment how well this system can act within a set of weird senseless rules, you're still looking at a perversion of what could very easily be a system that functions better in a different format. When the chess computers tried on the wares of strong AI, what they got was a sub-optimal system that 'fit the suit' just fine, but got its proverbial ass handed to it by the weak AI system. And laughter was had by all.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Monday, September 20, 2010
Logic & the Meatless Life
Okay, so this is a busy study blogger right here. A busy study blogger who does not have the time to study and then blog about that studying. That changes now. I should be polishing off some statistics homework, or working on a constitution for the spiritual inquiry organization I'm putting together, or researching more about bicycle libraries so the one I'm trying to found becomes more feasible, or looking up grad schools, or studying for the GRE or doing reading for any of my classes, but that isn't what I'd like to be doing. I'd very much like to do this. So let's, shall we?
As I've said before, one of the classes I'm taking is a course on logic. Right now we've only done "syllogistic translations/arguments" which basically refers to the building blocks of logic. The most basic format of logical statement that can be shown to be valid or invalid. So lets see if we can translate one of my most fundamental and identifying beliefs into a syllogistic argument and try to tear it down. Please, this is a study blog and I come here to study/learn so if I make a mistake somewhere along the way, don't be afraid to point it out.
Before I get started here, let's learn about this belief of mine. It's a bit of a doozy and weirds people out a lot of the time. I'm a vegan. For reasons you will see below, I abstain from the purchase/consumption of products made from animals. Okay. Still here? Well some of you are, that's good to see. Anyway, on with the show.
So, I base my big life belief on the following argument.
P1: Acts of cruelty, and the systems which perpetuate and profit from them, should not be supported by people who respect the value of life across species.
P2: I am a person who respects the value of life across species.
P3: All animal based industry perpetuate and profits from cruelties.
Conclusion: I should not support the meat/dairy/egg industry.
Now. First, let's translate this, but before we do this we need to know what we're translating it into. They are called WFF's. That is an acronym for something. No, I don't remember what. No I'm not going to look it up. Just trust me on this. I mean seriously, you stuck around after I said I was vegan. If this is the straw that breaks the camels back, I apologize. Either or, they are made up of 8 phrases detailed below. Capital letters signify a specific group while lower case letters signify individuals or individual cases.
All A is B; No A is B; Some A is B; Some A is not B; x is A; x is not A; x is y; x is not y.
If it's not translated into one of those phrases it's not a good logical statement. So are all my phrases logical?
P1-The use of the word "should" here can be confusing but remember, when I wrote that statement up there I was trying to write "naturally". Keep in mind that logically sound conclusions are true by necessity of the premises being true, and "should" isn't a statement about truth, it's a statement about idealism. Now idealism is an attempt to see what ALWAYS happens, so despite what I said up there we can read it as "None of those who respect life .... are supportive of cruel industries". We can translate that into the syllogism of: No R is S (No Respecter of life is a Supporter of cruel industries, if you want to follow at home in english.
P2-This one is much more straightforward - i is R (i is a Respecter of life).
P3-Also straightforward - All A is S (all Animal industry is Supportive of cruel industry.
C-The translation here makes it seem like I screwed up the translation somewhere, but I assure you I did not. Even though I'm concluding that I'm not the meat industry, you have to consider that we're trying to discuss patronage (and personal patronage at that) and it doesn't have an easy translation. That being said however, how I see that last line is the following WFF - i is not A (i is not supporter of the Animal industry.
Now how do we tell if that whole argument is valid? A nifty little device called the "Star Test". We first "distribute" any letter after no or not and any letter that immediately follows all. We then put a star next to letters in the premises that are distributed and letters in the conclusion that are not. In order to be valid, each capital letter must be starred only once and there must be one and one star only in the second half of one of our statements. Lets look at my translation.
P1 - No R is S
P2 - i is R
P3 - All A is S
C - i is not S
And after distribution... (Distributions are italicized.
P1 - No R is S
P2 - i is R
P3 - All A is S
C - i is not S
Which means when we star...
P1 - No R* is S*
P2 - i is R
P3 - All A* is S
C - i* is not S
Every letter was starred once, and there's only one right hand star. My argument is valid! Is it true though? That's another post for another time.
As I've said before, one of the classes I'm taking is a course on logic. Right now we've only done "syllogistic translations/arguments" which basically refers to the building blocks of logic. The most basic format of logical statement that can be shown to be valid or invalid. So lets see if we can translate one of my most fundamental and identifying beliefs into a syllogistic argument and try to tear it down. Please, this is a study blog and I come here to study/learn so if I make a mistake somewhere along the way, don't be afraid to point it out.
Before I get started here, let's learn about this belief of mine. It's a bit of a doozy and weirds people out a lot of the time. I'm a vegan. For reasons you will see below, I abstain from the purchase/consumption of products made from animals. Okay. Still here? Well some of you are, that's good to see. Anyway, on with the show.
So, I base my big life belief on the following argument.
P1: Acts of cruelty, and the systems which perpetuate and profit from them, should not be supported by people who respect the value of life across species.
P2: I am a person who respects the value of life across species.
P3: All animal based industry perpetuate and profits from cruelties.
Conclusion: I should not support the meat/dairy/egg industry.
Now. First, let's translate this, but before we do this we need to know what we're translating it into. They are called WFF's. That is an acronym for something. No, I don't remember what. No I'm not going to look it up. Just trust me on this. I mean seriously, you stuck around after I said I was vegan. If this is the straw that breaks the camels back, I apologize. Either or, they are made up of 8 phrases detailed below. Capital letters signify a specific group while lower case letters signify individuals or individual cases.
All A is B; No A is B; Some A is B; Some A is not B; x is A; x is not A; x is y; x is not y.
If it's not translated into one of those phrases it's not a good logical statement. So are all my phrases logical?
P1-The use of the word "should" here can be confusing but remember, when I wrote that statement up there I was trying to write "naturally". Keep in mind that logically sound conclusions are true by necessity of the premises being true, and "should" isn't a statement about truth, it's a statement about idealism. Now idealism is an attempt to see what ALWAYS happens, so despite what I said up there we can read it as "None of those who respect life .... are supportive of cruel industries". We can translate that into the syllogism of: No R is S (No Respecter of life is a Supporter of cruel industries, if you want to follow at home in english.
P2-This one is much more straightforward - i is R (i is a Respecter of life).
P3-Also straightforward - All A is S (all Animal industry is Supportive of cruel industry.
C-The translation here makes it seem like I screwed up the translation somewhere, but I assure you I did not. Even though I'm concluding that I'm not the meat industry, you have to consider that we're trying to discuss patronage (and personal patronage at that) and it doesn't have an easy translation. That being said however, how I see that last line is the following WFF - i is not A (i is not supporter of the Animal industry.
Now how do we tell if that whole argument is valid? A nifty little device called the "Star Test". We first "distribute" any letter after no or not and any letter that immediately follows all. We then put a star next to letters in the premises that are distributed and letters in the conclusion that are not. In order to be valid, each capital letter must be starred only once and there must be one and one star only in the second half of one of our statements. Lets look at my translation.
P1 - No R is S
P2 - i is R
P3 - All A is S
C - i is not S
And after distribution... (Distributions are italicized.
P1 - No R is S
P2 - i is R
P3 - All A is S
C - i is not S
Which means when we star...
P1 - No R* is S*
P2 - i is R
P3 - All A* is S
C - i* is not S
Every letter was starred once, and there's only one right hand star. My argument is valid! Is it true though? That's another post for another time.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Catch Up
So there was a lot of talk about this being a "study blog" but then out of no where I realized that on top of studying I have to do stuff. That being the case, here is my brief run down of what class has entailed for the past two weeks.
STATS
PROFESSOR
Yo. So this is statistics. WITH LINES!!!!!!
ME
Cool beans.
PROFESSOR
You better start planning your research project because it'll have to tie into your senior thesis!
ME
.... dude ....
LOGIC
PROFESSOR
So this is how logic works!
ME
Wow, this looks a lot like math.
PROFESSOR
Yep. This is where math got the idea *mumbled* sort of...
MORALITY AND MEDICINE
PROFESSOR
So this field pertaining to how we approach life in general? Guess what you guys. Sometimes, it TOTALLY pertains to religion and higher thought.
ME
This seems familiar.
PROFESSOR
Hope you enjoy group work because there's a group project worth 25% of your grade. Here they are now!
GROUP MEMBERS
Yo. Hope you like suicide.
ME
I think I may learn to embrace it.
ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY
PROFESSOR
Here's some stories about Socrates! What's a common theme in them?
ME
Socrates is kind of an obnoxious dick?
PROFESSOR
Well, yes. But WHY?
ME
He asked a whole lot of questions and forced people to recognize that their beliefs were based on irrationality.
PROFESSOR
Exactly. And that's what I want all of you to be able to both do and value. I want you to always be questioning what people really know and what makes them think they know it.
RANDOM CHRISTIAN GIRL
But in relation to this really vital and interesting problem for all those who prescribe to most forms of monotheism, I feel like at some point you just can't question god.
PROFESSORS INTERNAL MONOLOGUE
What did I JUST SAY. YOU HAVE MISSED THE POINT AND YOU NOW LOSE THE GAME.
PROFESSOR
OK then I suppose... If anyone wants to see me after class I'll be in my office weeping over the acceptance standards of this school.
EPISTEMOLOGY
PROFESSOR
Epistemology is the important study of various jerks who threw ducks in the jet engines of mankind's belief and walked away from the explosion giggling.
ME
I simultaneously am fascinated and infuriated.
PROFESSOR
Yeah, that's pretty normal for science majors.
BIOMEDICAL ETHICS
PROFESSOR
So this field pertaining to how we approach life in general? Guess what you guys. Sometimes, it TOTALLY pertains to religion and higher thought.
ME
This seems familiar.
PROFESSOR
I don't care what your opinions on group work are because this class is completely reliant on how well you stand up on your own!
ME
On second thought, maybe it's not that familiar after all...
STATS
PROFESSOR
Yo. So this is statistics. WITH LINES!!!!!!
ME
Cool beans.
PROFESSOR
You better start planning your research project because it'll have to tie into your senior thesis!
ME
.... dude ....
LOGIC
PROFESSOR
So this is how logic works!
ME
Wow, this looks a lot like math.
PROFESSOR
Yep. This is where math got the idea *mumbled* sort of...
MORALITY AND MEDICINE
PROFESSOR
So this field pertaining to how we approach life in general? Guess what you guys. Sometimes, it TOTALLY pertains to religion and higher thought.
ME
This seems familiar.
PROFESSOR
Hope you enjoy group work because there's a group project worth 25% of your grade. Here they are now!
GROUP MEMBERS
Yo. Hope you like suicide.
ME
I think I may learn to embrace it.
ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY
PROFESSOR
Here's some stories about Socrates! What's a common theme in them?
ME
Socrates is kind of an obnoxious dick?
PROFESSOR
Well, yes. But WHY?
ME
He asked a whole lot of questions and forced people to recognize that their beliefs were based on irrationality.
PROFESSOR
Exactly. And that's what I want all of you to be able to both do and value. I want you to always be questioning what people really know and what makes them think they know it.
RANDOM CHRISTIAN GIRL
But in relation to this really vital and interesting problem for all those who prescribe to most forms of monotheism, I feel like at some point you just can't question god.
PROFESSORS INTERNAL MONOLOGUE
What did I JUST SAY. YOU HAVE MISSED THE POINT AND YOU NOW LOSE THE GAME.
PROFESSOR
OK then I suppose... If anyone wants to see me after class I'll be in my office weeping over the acceptance standards of this school.
EPISTEMOLOGY
PROFESSOR
Epistemology is the important study of various jerks who threw ducks in the jet engines of mankind's belief and walked away from the explosion giggling.
ME
I simultaneously am fascinated and infuriated.
PROFESSOR
Yeah, that's pretty normal for science majors.
BIOMEDICAL ETHICS
PROFESSOR
So this field pertaining to how we approach life in general? Guess what you guys. Sometimes, it TOTALLY pertains to religion and higher thought.
ME
This seems familiar.
PROFESSOR
I don't care what your opinions on group work are because this class is completely reliant on how well you stand up on your own!
ME
On second thought, maybe it's not that familiar after all...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)