Comment by gus_massa
8 years ago
> These are all errors that could be avoided by actual human intelligence.
Do you think that dogs are intelligent? Can you imagine some situation where the dog intelligence is not enough to solve it?
Unlike dogs intelligence, the intelligence of computers is improving. Now they can play chess and go like a grand master, but 30 years ago it was an impossible task.
The problems you cite are real, but sometimes people fail at them too (drivers regularly run over people, witness misidentify suspect because they have a skin color that is not the skin color of most of the people they see, people actually believe and like fake news). Just give some years until the interface with the real world is improved and computers have more "street" knowledge to apply in difficult situations.
> See "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle" for one reason.
I have now idea about how this is related.
It's related because it says that the observer cannot escape the observation; he's creating it. We cannot objectively assess our intelligence or creativity because we are the ones observing them. If we can't understand or assess how they came to be, we can't replicate them.
This is not logically sound at all.
We can replicate a great many things we don't fully understand.
Text to speech is a good example. Early text to speech were format based - many of them tried to physically emulate the human vocal tract. And it gets passable results, but the best current results comes from throwing away that and not try to understand and model precisely how we talk, but instead "just" apply machine learning approaches to create a model. The result replicates human speech vastly better, despite us explicitly "giving up" on understanding precisely how to model the underlying system.
The same is true for a huge amount of other control problems, where we often achieve far better results at replicating something when we don't try to understand or assess exactly how something came to be or works, but instead design systems to learn by example.
We still may see benefits from trying to achieve a deeper understanding, but there is little to suggest that there is some universal law that we need to understand something to replicate it.