Artificial Intellegence

Watson, the computer designed to play Jeopardy!, has people talking about whether computers will ever be able to think like humans do. The actuality of that happening is unlikely.

One thing about human thinking is that it's fused with function. While recalling trivia for a game show, our brains monitor our heart beat and makes sure we are breathing. Thinking isn't much different. Although they may not seem so, thoughts are geared to monitor our environment and make sure we take care of the necessities of life. When we are are hungry we think a lot about food, when we are on a trivia game show, we think a lot about trivia.

Watson was designed to answer questions for the sake of answering questions. Humans learn answers not for the sake answering questions. There is a benefit to having knowledge. It shapes how we make decisions. Presumably you can make better decisions while knowing many alternatives and the likely outcomes. But we set aside trivial pursuits when the situation calls for it. Watson doesn't monitor power plants and recognize there will be a power shortage. If asked a question he would not answer, "The power will go out in the next 5 minutes, I see no point in answering this question. I'm just going to take the rest of the time I have to enjoy myself."

Watson was designed to be a tool. It's a computer to achieve what humans cannot achieve with their own abilities. It's designed to replicate the fruits of human thought without an understanding of what thoughts are. A computer can be designed to play Jeopardy! but can it be designed to be human? I think not.

There could not be a bigger travesty of a statement other than, "I think there fore I am." It's rhetorically splashy but bound with error. Thinking allows us to think about being but doesn't cause it. Thinking is not always advantageous or necessary. It is something humans do but it might not be what a living thing made of silicon wafers needs to survive. It is dear to humans, but why do we act like everything is jealous that cannot think?

Brevity

Describing things can be hazardous. A long-winded description will be close to the actual thing. At some point it becomes better just to witness the thing in itself rather than put it into language.

A description that is too brief will be unsatisfactory since the description is too weak to imagine without the actual thing in front of you. The reason why it should be put into language is incomplete.

The saying by William Shakespeare, "brevity is the soul of wit" seems to contain this train of thought. An intelligent description is a balance between not knowing what to say thus saying everything and not saying enough thus exchanging no idea at all.