Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!reader5.news.weretis.net!news.solani.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mild Shock Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog Subject: Ok I made a joke, sorry (e: 2nd Cognitive Turn ~~> no Bayesian Brain) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2024 23:29:12 +0200 Message-ID: References: <1b7ce2bd-722b-4c2e-b853-12fc2232752bn@googlegroups.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2024 21:29:11 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: solani.org; logging-data="797505"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@news.solani.org" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/91.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.18.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:+At3bzN0mW1qt1gaWMuUdHWELoo= X-User-ID: eJwNyEkBwDAIBEBLUBZC5HD6l9A8Z1SMrQ5MDbq6J6cpJHneSHnF5CpTOpbDuysN9xtxyrKnr+GgW+2BQf58URal In-Reply-To: Bytes: 6824 Lines: 143 My impression Cognitive Science was never Bayesian Brain, so I guess I made a joke. The time scale, its start in 1950s and that it is still relative unknown subject, would explain: - why my father or mother never tried to educated me towards cognitive science. It could be that they are totally blank in this respect? - why my grandfather or grandmothers never tried to educate me towards cognitive science. Dito It could be that they are totally blank in this respect? - it could be that there are rare cases where some philosophers had already a glimps of cognitive science. But when I open for example this booklet: System der Logic Friedrich Ueberweg Bonn - 1868 https://philpapers.org/rec/UEBSDL One can feel the dry swimming that is reported for several millennia. What happened in the 1950s was the possibility of computer modelling. Mild Shock schrieb: > Hi, > > Yes, maybe we are just before a kind > of 2nd Cognitive Turn. The first Cognitive > Turn is characterized as: > > > The cognitive revolution was an intellectual > > movement that began in the 1950s as an > > interdisciplinary study of the mind and its > > processes, from which emerged a new > > field known as cognitive science. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_revolution > > The current mainstream believe is that > Chat Bots and the progress in AI is mainly > based on "Machine Learning", whereas > > most of the progress is more based on > "Deep Learning". But I am also sceptical > about "Deep Learning" in the end a frequentist > > is again lurking. In the worst case the > no Bayension Brain shock will come with a > Technological singularity in that the current > > short inferencing of LLMs is enhanced by > some long inferencing, like here: > > A week ago, I posted that I was cooking a > logical reasoning benchmark as a side project. > Now it's finally ready! Introducing 🦓 𝙕𝙚𝙗𝙧𝙖𝙇𝙤𝙜𝙞𝙘, > designed for evaluating LLMs with Logic Puzzles. > https://x.com/billyuchenlin/status/1814254565128335705 > > making it possible not to excell by LLMs > in such puzzles, but to advance to more > elaborate scientific models, that can somehow > > overcome fallacies such as: > - Kochen Specker Paradox, some fallacies >   caused by averaging? > - Gluts and Gaps in Bayesian Reasoning, >   some fallacies by consistency assumptions? > - What else? > > So on quiet paws AI might become the new overlord > of science which we will happily depend on. > > Jeff Barnett schrieb: > > You are surprised; I am saddened. Not only have > we lost contact with the primary studies of knowledge > and reasoning, we have also lost contact with the > studies of methods and motivation. Psychology > was the basic home room of Alan Newell and many > other AI all stars. What is now called AI, I think > incorrectly, is just ways of exercising large amounts > of very cheap computer power to calculate approximates > to correlations and other statistical approximations. > > The problem with all of this in my mind, is that we > learn nothing about the capturing of knowledge, what > it is, or how it is used. Both logic and heuristic reasoning > are needed and we certainly believe that intelligence is > not measured by its ability to discover "truth" or its > infallibly consistent results. Newton's thought process > was pure genius but known to produce fallacious results > when you know what Einstein knew at a later time. > > I remember reading Ted Shortliffe's dissertation about > MYCIN (an early AI medical consultant for diagnosing > blood-borne infectious diseases) where I learned about > one use of the term "staff disease", or just "staff" for short. > In patient care areas there always seems to be an in- > house infection that changes over time. It changes > because sick patients brought into the area contribute > whatever is making them sick in the first place. In the > second place there is rapid mutations driven by all sorts > of factors present in hospital-like environments. The > result is that the local staff is varying, literally, minute > by minute. In a days time, the samples you took are > no longer valid, i.e., their day old cultures may be > meaningless. The underlying mathematical problem is > that probability theory doesn't really have the tools to > make predictions when the basic probabilities are > changing faster than observations can be > turned into inferences. > > Why do I mention the problems of unstable probabilities > here? Because new AI uses fancy ideas of correlation > to simulate probabilistic inference, e.g., Bayesian inference. > Since actual probabilities may not exist in any meaningful > ways, the simulations are often based on air. > > A hallmark of excellent human reasoning is the ability to > explain how we arrived at our conclusions. We are also > able to repair our inner models when we are in error if > we can understand why. The abilities to explain and > repair are fundamental to excellence of thought processes. > By the way, I'm not claiming that all humans or I have theses > reflective abilities. Those who do are few and far between. > However, any AI that doesn't have some of these > capabilities isn't very interesting. > > For more on reasons why logic and truth are only part of human > ability to reasonably reason, see > > https://www.yahoo.com/news/opinion-want-convince-conspiracy-theory-100258277.html > > >    -- Jeff Barnett