Herbert L. Roitblat
Abstract:Artificial intelligence systems exhibit many useful capabilities, but they appear to lack understanding. This essay describes how we could go about constructing a machine capable of understanding. As John Locke (1689) pointed out words are signs for ideas, which we can paraphrase as thoughts and concepts. To understand a word is to know and be able to work with the underlying concepts for which it is an indicator. Understanding between a speaker and a listener occurs when the speaker casts his or her concepts into words and the listener recovers approximately those same concepts. Current models rely on the listener to construct any potential meaning. The diminution of behaviorism as a psychological paradigm and the rise of cognitivism provide examples of many experimental methods that can be used to determine whether and to what extent a machine might understand and to make suggestions about how that understanding might be instantiated.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The core issue explored in this paper is whether artificial intelligence systems can truly understand language and the concepts behind it. The author points out that although current AI systems exhibit many useful capabilities, they seem to lack a deep understanding of language. The paper elaborates on the nature of understanding by referencing John Locke's view that language symbols are markers of thoughts and concepts.
The paper mentions that current AI models, especially large-scale language models based on the Transformer architecture, can only generate output based on the statistical relationships of the input. The internal representations of these models merely reflect the statistical associations between words and do not capture the deeper concepts or meanings behind the words. In this scenario, the models can only predict based on patterns from previously trained data and cannot truly understand the concepts represented by the words.
To achieve machine understanding, the paper proposes moving beyond a behaviorist perspective and adopting a cognitivist approach to explore whether machines can possess cognitive processes similar to humans, such as reasoning, explaining, and predicting. The author emphasizes that to determine whether a machine truly understands language, one must observe whether its behavior aligns with the performance of deep cognitive processes.
Additionally, the paper discusses the symbol grounding problem, which is how to make the semantic interpretation of a symbol system an intrinsic part of the system rather than relying solely on the knowledge of external individuals. The author points out that to give symbols meaning, it is necessary to connect symbols with non-symbolic representations. These non-symbolic representations can be simulations of the sensory attributes of objects or events, or categorical representations of the invariant features of objects or events.
Finally, the paper mentions the Nvidia CEO's view on how to address the issue of hallucinations generated by large language models, which is to add rules to verify whether the text generated by the model can be corroborated by other texts. This approach aims to constrain the model's behavior, making it closer to true understanding.
In summary, the core issue this paper attempts to address is exploring how to construct AI systems with true understanding capabilities and discussing the challenges and possible paths to achieving this goal.