On the one hand, Eliezer is right in terms of historical and technical specifics.
On the other hand neural networks for many are a metoynym for continuous computations vs. the discrete computations of logic. This was my reaction when the two PDP volumes came out in the 80s. It wasn’t “Here’s the Way.” It was “Here’s and example of how to do things differently that will certainly work better.”
Note also that the GOFAI folks were not trying to use just one point in logic space. In the 70s we already knew that monotonic logic was not good enough (due to the frame problem among other things) so there was an active exploration of different types of non-monotonic logic. That’s in addition to all the modal logics, etc.
So the dichotomy Eliezer refers to should be viewed as more of a hyperplane separator in intelligence model space. From that point of view I think it is fairly valid—the subspace of logical approaches is pretty separate from the subspace of continuous approaches, though Detlef and maybe others have shown you can build bridges.
The two approaches were even more separate culturally at the time. AI researchers didn’t learn or use continuous mathematics, and didn’t want to see it in their papers. That probably has something to do with the 17 years. Human brains and human social groups aren’t very good vehicles for this kind of search.
So yes, treating this as distinction between sharp points is wrong. But treating it as a description of a big cultural transition is right.
On the one hand, Eliezer is right in terms of historical and technical specifics.
On the other hand neural networks for many are a metoynym for continuous computations vs. the discrete computations of logic. This was my reaction when the two PDP volumes came out in the 80s. It wasn’t “Here’s the Way.” It was “Here’s and example of how to do things differently that will certainly work better.”
Note also that the GOFAI folks were not trying to use just one point in logic space. In the 70s we already knew that monotonic logic was not good enough (due to the frame problem among other things) so there was an active exploration of different types of non-monotonic logic. That’s in addition to all the modal logics, etc.
So the dichotomy Eliezer refers to should be viewed as more of a hyperplane separator in intelligence model space. From that point of view I think it is fairly valid—the subspace of logical approaches is pretty separate from the subspace of continuous approaches, though Detlef and maybe others have shown you can build bridges.
The two approaches were even more separate culturally at the time. AI researchers didn’t learn or use continuous mathematics, and didn’t want to see it in their papers. That probably has something to do with the 17 years. Human brains and human social groups aren’t very good vehicles for this kind of search.
So yes, treating this as distinction between sharp points is wrong. But treating it as a description of a big cultural transition is right.