I understand the disdain towards brute force approaches. The 4-colour problem was "proven" by brute-forcing it - checking every possible topological configuration of maps and showing they can be coloured properly. It gives us a result, but no insight into why it is true.
However, brute force methods can produce results we couldn't otherwise imagine - our own biases/traditions/point of view blinds us to other ways of doing things. The recent Go match is an example, where DeepMind produced moves that were incomprehensible when they were made, but led to wins later in the match. This is valuable learning.
I also think brute-force techniques can produce superior results where no other means are possible. Genetic algorithms are like this - they can produce near optimal solutions to problems that are otherwise computationally impossible to solve, simply by being able to test large numbers of somewhat random events and promoting those solutions that score highly.
I think peter12's real issue is against those who think AI will be able to take over for humans in systems where decisions need to be made based on rational understanding, intuition, and maybe common sense, over a more mechanistic approach. I agree with this stance - without understanding the limitations of AI, it can be misused and result in very unforeseen consequences. However, I think the recent increase of interest in AI is a good thing, even if that interest is misplaced. AI was considered a near-dead field when I was in university, but recent advancements have vastly improved the quality and "learning efficiency" of neural networks leading to, among other things, the defeat of a Go master.
This inevitably starts to lead down various philosophical (religious?) paths. If you are a materialist, and humans are bound by purely predetermined mechanistic reactions to stimuli, then you can see AI as eventually being able to perfectly model a human brain. Otherwise, there will always be a gap, and it is important to recognize what that gap is.
|