John,
Reading this I got an image of big corporate CEOs lined up in testimony before Congress
and what sort of skillset goes into the kinds of antics, er, performances we've all
seen there.
I can't help thinking LLM chatbots provide a more realistic model of that brand of BS
artistry than your idealized CEO ever could. :)
Jon
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com
On May 8, 2024, at 2:27 PM, John F Sowa
<sowa(a)bestweb.net> wrote:
In today's ZOOM session, I mentioned the idea of a central executive for an AI
system. As a starting point, imagine something like Siri, Alexa, Cortana -- but with
much more smarts. AI systems, both new and old, can provide a large part of the smarts.
Like humans, they wouldn't be infallible. But they could support a central executive
that would be held responsible in case of errors or problems or disasters.
The critical issue is RESPONSIBILITY. The central executive would be comparable to the
CEO of a corporation. EVALUATION is essential. The central executive, like the CEO of a
corporation, would know how to get any info that may be needed and who could evaluate it
against whatever business, legal, factual, or ethical criteria are critical.
LLMs are very good for finding information in ordinary language. But they are not good
at evaluating that information. More traditional AI reasoning systems are more accurate
and more reliable. The central executive must have both kinds of abilities -- supported
by appropriate AI assistants.
I attached Section7 of an article I recently finished. It explains some background from
psychology, neuroscience, and computer systems. See especially Figures 18, 19, and 20.
Figure 18 represents human reasoning. Figure 19 shows how an AI central executive could
play the role of a human. and Figurer 20 shows a similar "OODA" loop that has
been used to analyze and solve “wicked” engineering problems, which involve “complex
interdependences" between the systems and incomplete, inconsistent, information about
the problems.
And see some excerpts below from an earlier note I sent to Ontolog Forum.
John
____________________________________
Sent: 5/5/24 9:52 PM
The psychologists Baddeley & Hitch wrote their initial article in 1974. They wrote
in response to George Miller's hypothesis about the "Magic number 7, plus or
minus 3". They realized that there is much more to short-term memory than just words
and phonemes. They called Miller's storage "the phonological loop" and they
added a "visuo-spatial scratchpad" for short-term memory of imagery and
feelings. And they continued to revise and extend their research for another 20 or 30
years.
Neuroscientists, who are specialists in different aspects, have been working on related
issues. The consensus is not a single hypothesis, but a branch of research on issues
related to conscious control of action by a central executive in the frontal lobes vs.
subconscious control by the brainstem and the cerebellum.
For example, when you're walking down the street and talking on your cell phone,
several different systems are controlling your actions: (1) the central executive is in
charge of what you're doing on the phone in talking and pushing buttons; (2) the
cerebellum is guiding your steps in walking and maintaining your balance; (3) the brain
stem is maintaining your breathing, heart beat, and other bodily functions; and (4) the
nerves running done the spine and branching to all parts of your body are controlling
every movement and monitoring any abnormalities, such as a burn, a scratch, or a more
serious injury.
In Freud's terms. the central executive is the ego, and the lower-level systems are
the id. Those ideas are much older, but they illustrate the kinds of issues involved.
The more recent research relates the observational data to actual neural functions in
specific regions of the brain. Since aspects of those functions can be traced back to the
earliest bacteria, worms, and fish, there must be something fundamental about them. AI
systems that do not support related functions do so at their peril.
In my notes and the articles I cite, there are many references to ongoing research. For
more background, don't use those GPT-based things that summarize surface-level trivia.
You can start with Wikipedia, which cites the original research. Then continue with more
detailed studies in neuroscience.
<Section7.pdf>
_______________________________________________
CG mailing list -- cg(a)lists.iccs-conference.org
To unsubscribe send an email to cg-leave(a)lists.iccs-conference.org