Making AI Great Again: Keeping the AI Spring Lito Perez Cruz1 and David Treisman2 1Sleekersoft, 2 Warburton Crt., Mill Park, VIC 3082, Australia 2C F Gauss & Associates, PO Box 652, Templestowe, VIC 3106, Australia Keywords: Artificial Intelligence, Deep Learning, Agents. Abstract: There are philosophical implications to how we define Artificial Intelligence (AI). To talk about AI is to deal with philosophy. Working on the intersections between these subjects, this paper takes a multi-lens approach in examining the reasons for the present resurgence of interest in things AI through a range of historical, linguistic, mathematical and economic perspectives. It identifies AI’s past decline and offers suggestions on how to sustain and give substance to the current global hype and frenzy surrounding AI. 1 INTRODUCTION larly, the call AI’s rise which is what we have today as ”AI Spring”. Today we are seeing an unexpected global buzz about In this paper, we will identify the ”signal” from the benefits of Artificial Intelligence(AI), a phenome- the ”noise” (so to speak) by examining the present rise non absent a decade ago.There is a fervent and mas- of AI activity from various angels. We will argue that sive interest on the benefits of AI. Collectively, the having a clear definition of AI us vital in this analy- European Union through the European Commission sis. We do this by dealing with its historico-linguistic has agreed to boost AI investments1. The British go- career. We will show that indeed, the success pro- vernment, for example, is currently allocating 1 bil- vided by Deep Learning(DL), a branch of Machine lion pounds to finance at least 1,000 government sup- Learning (ML) which is itself a mini sub-category in ported PhD research studies2. In its latest attempt to AI, is spearheading this rise in enthusiasm and in the provide meaning to the AI revolution and to prove it- majority of cases this is what people mean when they self as a leading source of AI talent , the French go- name-drop the AI label. We discuss the mathematical vernment has recently unveiled its grand strategy to features that contribute to its accomplishments. Next, build Paris into a global AI hub3. we will interject the idea of agency and ontology in The present response of governments to AI is a AI concepts which the public is uninformed about but stark contrast from the British governments reaction are considered by AI researchers important in having following the Lighthill Report in 1973 which de- a robust AI product. We then take a lesson from eco- picted AI as a mirage, criticizing its failure to achieve nomics and finally wrap our discussion with sugges- its grandiose objectives (Lighthill, 1973). Years af- tions on how we, as a community, can deflect another ter that a decline in AI funding occurred. In that AI winter and sustain the present AI interest. era many AI scientists and practitioners experienced trauma and shunned from identifying their products as AI. They saw how businesses have not been keen 2 THE AI TERM: A to the idea. Computer science historians call the de- cline of AI funding and interest ”AI Winter”. Simi- HISTORICO-LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS 1http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release IP-18-3362 en. htm What is intelligence? It is obvious, philosophers, psy- 2https://www.gov.uk/government/news/tech-sector- backs-british-ai-industry-with-multi-million-pound- chologists and educators are still trying to settle the investment–2 right definition of the term. We have definitely know 3https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/29/france-wants-to- some notion of it but defining it into words is easier beco me-an-artificial-intelligence-hub/ said than done. For example, the dictionary says it 144 Cruz, L. and Treisman, D. Making AI Great Again: Keeping the AI Spring. DOI: 10.5220/0006896001440151 In Proceedings of the 10th International Joint Conference on Computational Intelligence (IJCCI 2018), pages 144-151 ISBN: 978-989-758-327-8 Copyright © 2018 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved Making AI Great Again: Keeping the AI Spring is ”the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and the judgment of the community is that as far back skills”. This is too broad. Because of this imprecision as 1943, the work done by Warren McCulloch and in identifying human intelligence, we face the same Walter Pitts in the area of computational neuroscience dilemma when it comes to machine intelligence, i.e., is AI (Russel and Norwig, 2010). Their work entitled AI. Of course, all are aware that Alan Turing was one A Logical Calculus of Ideas Immanent in Nervous of the first people who asked if machines could think. Activity (McCulloch and Pitts, 1943) (Russel and Yet, it has been recognized that AI’s goals have often Norwig, 2010) (Flasinski, 2016) proposed a model been debatable, here the points of views are wide and for artificial neurons as a switch with an ”on” and varied. Experts recognize this inaccuracy and they ”off” states. These states are seen as equivalent to do rally for a more formal and accurate definition a proposition for neuron stimulation. McCulloch (Russell, 2016). This ambiguousness, we believe, is a and Pitts showed that any computable function can source of confusion when AI researchers see the term be computed by some network of neurons. The used today (Earley, 2016) (Datta, 2017). interesting part is that they suggested these artificial neurons could learn. In 1950, Marvin Minsky and If a computer program performs optimization, Dean Edmonds inspired by the former’s research on is this intelligence? Is prediction the same as in- computational neural networks (NN), built the first telligence? When a computer categorizes correctly hardware based NN computer. Minsky later would an object, is that intelligence? If something is prove theorems on the limitations of NN (Russel and automated, is that a demonstration of its capacity Norwig, 2010). to think? This lack of canonical definition is a constant problem in AI and it is being brought again From the above developments we can see that over by computer scientists observing the new AI spring optimistic pronouncements emerged right at the in- (Datta, 2017). ception of AI. Such type of conduct bears upon our analysis below. Carl Sagan said,”You have to know the past to un- derstand the present” and so let us apply this rule by studying the history of the AI term so that we may see 3 AI PARADIGMS AND DEGREES why AI is suddenly getting very much publicity these days. 3.1 Symbolic vs Connectionist John McCarthy, the inventor of the LISP program- ming language, in 1956 introduced the AI term at a Going back to Section 2, we may observe the follo- Darthmouth College conference attended by AI per- wing. The group gathered by McCarthy proceeded to sonalities such as Marvin Minsky, Claude Shannon work on the use of logic in AI and is consequently and Nathaniel Rochester and another seven others called by some as the Symbolic approach to AI. of academic and industrial backgrounds (Russel and Authors have called this view Good Old Fashion Norwig, 2010), (Buchanan, 2006). The researchers AI (GOFAI). Most of these people apart from Min- organized to study if learning or intelligence, ”can be sky, worked on this field and for a while gathered precisely so described that a machine can be made momentum primarily because it was programming to simulate it” (Russel and Norwig, 2010). At that language based and due to the influence of Newell conference, the thunder came from the work demon- and Simon’s results. Those working on NN were strated by Allen Newell and Herbert Simon with J. called Connectionists since by the nature of networks, Clifford Shaw of Carnegie Mellon University on their must be connected. These groups continue to debate Logic Theorist program (Flasinski, 2016) (Russel and each other on the proper method for addressing the Norwig, 2010). This program was a reasoner and was challenges facing AI (Smolensky, 1987). able to prove most of the theorems in Chapter 2 of Principia Mathematica of Bertrand Russell and Al- This distinction in approaches should come into fred North Whitehead. Being in the field of foundati- play when the AI term is used but hardly is there an ons of mathematics, many hoped that all present mat- awareness of this in the media and the public. hematical theories can be so derived. Ironically they tried to publish their work at the Journal of Symbolic 3.2 Strong or Weak AI Logic but the editors rejected it, not being astounded that it was a computer that derived and proved the the- In 1976, Newell and Simon taught that the human orems. brain is a computer and vice versa. Hence, anything Though it was in 1956 when the term was used, the human mind can do, the computer should be able 145 IJCCI 2018 - 10th International Joint Conference on Computational Intelligence to do as well. In (Searle, 1980), Searle introduced We note that at this stage, the connectionists were Strong AI versus Weak AI. Strong AI treats the also gaining ground with their idea of the perceptron, computer as equivalent to the human brain or the the precursor to NN. ”brain in the box”. Therefore, Strong AI implies that the computer should be able to solve any problem. (Russel and Norwig, 2010) mark 1966-1973 as This is also called Artificial General Intelligence the first fall of AI or what may be called the first AI (AGI). winter. In 1973, the famous report by the British On the other hand, Weak AI considers the computer government known as the Lighthill report shot and as a device geared up to solve only specific or burst the lofty balloon of AI (Lighthill, 1973).