←back to thread

184 points hhs | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.201s | source
Show context
whyowhy3484939 ◴[] No.41840292[source]
"Suppose you try to construct a coherent, ordered, natural world with no resource other than repeated exposure to things, and the formation of certain associative bonds. Oh, please!"

This is prof. Robinson on Kantian philosophy - check out Oxford podcasts by the way - and this quote is meant to imply that building a coherent world out of raw sensory data and statistics alone is completely and utterly impractical if not outright impossible. While I don't think he meant to refer to any kind of AI, in my mind this description also aptly describes the general method of DL neural networks. Repeated exposure to find correlation.

How does one find order through associativity alone? With AI this is not an academic problem anymore. This has become practical. Kant says it is impossible, not just unlikely.

The Kantian project and the various core issues it tries to address seems readily applicable to AI research yet I see very little mention of it. Perhaps I am just dumb though. Building a mind capable of taming tremendous sensory flux needs to, at the very least, take note of the (many) fundamental issues he raised. Issues I feel are not at all trivial to set aside. I feel we are stuck in Hume's empiricist reasoning and have yet to graduate to Kant and beyond.

Are we now somehow convinced yet again that causality and reasoning will, in fact, after all spontaneously emerge out of pure chaos? Didn't we settle the impossibility of this a few hundred years ago?

replies(4): >>41840690 #>>41841404 #>>41842278 #>>41844232 #
ilaksh ◴[] No.41841404[source]
Science came along and made much of philosophy obsolete, especially the parts that are now directly addressed by science and engineering projects.

For your comment to make sense it would have to include some context of computer science and artificial intelligence research, a significant amount of which is directly applicable to the topic you mention.

It's not that you are dumb, you are just being willfully ignorant. I'm not an expert on machine learning but I do know enough to say confidently that there is a lot of research about building world models from sensory data.

replies(2): >>41841776 #>>41842768 #
1. whyowhy3484939 ◴[] No.41841776[source]
Oh, I agree on the ignorant part, but you can believe me it is not willed. I very much like to be educated on this because nothing I have read - yet - touched these fundamental problems with a ten-foot pole.

I have elaborated in a sibling comment. I do not dare to ask you to consider it because it is quite loquacious, but in the off-chance you want to indulge in some armchair philosophy you can join me in my pedantry and enlighten a lost soul.