83,022
edits
Artificial intelligence: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) m (Amwelladmin moved page Artificial Intelligence to Artificial intelligence) |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{a|tech|}} | ||
{{seealso}} | {{seealso}} | ||
*{{aiprov|Rumours of our demise are greatly exaggerated}} | *{{aiprov|Rumours of our demise are greatly exaggerated}} | ||
*{{aiprov|On machine code and natural language}} | *{{aiprov|On machine code and natural language}} | ||
More particularly, why artificial intelligence won’t be sounding the death knell to the legal profession any time soon. | More particularly, why artificial intelligence won’t be sounding the death knell to the legal profession any time soon. | ||
===Computer language isn’t nearly as rich as human language=== | |||
==Computer language isn’t nearly as rich as human language== | ====No tenses==== | ||
===No tenses=== | |||
*machine language deals with past (and future) events in the present tense: Instead of saying: | *machine language deals with past (and future) events in the present tense: Instead of saying: | ||
{{box|“The computer’s configuration on May 1, 2012 '''''was''''' XYZ”}} | {{box|“The computer’s configuration on May 1, 2012 '''''was''''' XYZ”}} | ||
| Line 17: | Line 14: | ||
This way a computer does not need to conceptualise ''itself yesterday'' as something different to ''itself today'', which means it doesn’t need to conceptualise “itself” ''at all''. Therefore, computers don’t need to be self-aware. Unless computer syntax undergoes some dramatic revolution (it could happen: we have to assume human language went through that revolution at some stage) computers will never be self-aware. | This way a computer does not need to conceptualise ''itself yesterday'' as something different to ''itself today'', which means it doesn’t need to conceptualise “itself” ''at all''. Therefore, computers don’t need to be self-aware. Unless computer syntax undergoes some dramatic revolution (it could happen: we have to assume human language went through that revolution at some stage) computers will never be self-aware. | ||
===It can’t handle ambiguity=== | ====It can’t handle ambiguity==== | ||
Computer language is designed to allow machines to follow algorithms flawlessly. It needs to be deterministic — a given proposition must generate a unique binary operation — and it can’t allow any ''variability'' in interpretation. This makes it different from a natural language, which is shot through with both. | Computer language is designed to allow machines to follow algorithms flawlessly. It needs to be deterministic — a given proposition must generate a unique binary operation — and it can’t allow any ''variability'' in interpretation. This makes it different from a natural language, which is shot through with both. | ||
*It is very hard for a machine language to handle things like “reasonably necessary” or “best endeavours”. | *It is very hard for a machine language to handle things like “reasonably necessary” or “best endeavours”. | ||
| Line 23: | Line 20: | ||
*Aside from redundant meanings there are many meanings which are almost - but not entirely - the same, which must be coded for separately. | *Aside from redundant meanings there are many meanings which are almost - but not entirely - the same, which must be coded for separately. | ||
===The ground rules cannot change=== | ====The ground rules cannot change==== | ||
The logic and grammar of machine language and the assigned meaning of expressions is profoundly static. The corollary of the narrow and technical purpose for which machine language is used is its inflexibility: Machines fail to deal with unanticipated change. | The logic and grammar of machine language and the assigned meaning of expressions is profoundly static. The corollary of the narrow and technical purpose for which machine language is used is its inflexibility: Machines fail to deal with unanticipated change. | ||
===Infinite fidelity is impossible=== | ====Infinite fidelity is impossible==== | ||
There is a popular “reductionist” movement at the moment which seeks to atomise concepts with a view that untangling bundled concepts - by separating them into their elemental parts you can ultimately dispel all ambiguity. A similar attitude influences contemporary markets regulation. This programme aspires to ultimate certainty; a single set of axioms from which all propositions can be derived. From this perspective shortcomings in machine understanding of legal information are purely a function of a lack of sufficient detail the surmounting of which is a matter of time, given the collaborative power of the worldwide internet. The singularity is near: look at the incredible strides made in natural language processing (Google translate), self-driving cars, computers beating grandmasters at Chess and Go. | There is a popular “reductionist” movement at the moment which seeks to atomise concepts with a view that untangling bundled concepts - by separating them into their elemental parts you can ultimately dispel all ambiguity. A similar attitude influences contemporary markets regulation. This programme aspires to ultimate certainty; a single set of axioms from which all propositions can be derived. From this perspective shortcomings in machine understanding of legal information are purely a function of a lack of sufficient detail the surmounting of which is a matter of time, given the collaborative power of the worldwide internet. The singularity is near: look at the incredible strides made in natural language processing (Google translate), self-driving cars, computers beating grandmasters at Chess and Go. | ||