When I read about and see these artificial-intelligence programs doing "magnificent" things such as making analogies, making conversation with people, and problem solving programs. When first reading about programs like these I thought that they were doing something truly unique. Thinking that maybe these programs had a real sense of "knowledge" and "concept". After reading Hofstadter's critique it made me really question many of these types of programs.
Hofstadter writes about a problem of relevance that I find interesting. Which information does the program decide to use at a specific time or for a specific situation is interesting. I went and read examples from the ELIZA program and this program seemed to impress me less and less. It felt like an empty conversation, and it felt as though there was no knowledge being put forth. There seemed to be an emptiness that wasn't fulfilled when reading different examples of the ELIZA code.
I found that the ELIZA program had some relevance when conversing with people, but some of it felt as though Koko the gorilla was sitting there signing conversation to Penny Patterson.
I feel as though many of the AI programs such as ELIZA, or ACME seem to lack a specific feel to it. Like they actually have some sort of grasp on the world, and do not necessarily see it as a world full of patterns, strings, or numbers.
No comments:
Post a Comment