Hi David,
You make very good points.
The pragmatics issue is relatively easy to resolve. We know that because we train designers at uni and we use 'design guidelines'. Some of the recent stuff I've been involved in in machine learning on visual representations indicates we already have a good handle on this and it is progressing.
You also wrote ' Within their limited domain computers can do great things. They can also make bigger mistakes faster than any person could possibly even conceive of. Our ultimate defence, at least for the moment, is to know where the plug is so that we can pull it out."
The problem of instability of the automated leaning and stability of output of learning algorithms is a concern that isn't being addressed well enough.
But this happens in humans too...
My daughter when young used to sing about 'Emily and the Pea'.
When asked she said it was from learning the alphabet with the A B C song
She got to K then L and the 'Emily and the Pea'.
I see it also all the time in language learning. 'A naranga' became 'An aranga' (an orange). 'Appropriate' was to make something one's own - became to do something culturally acceptable.
Computers and humans learning algorithms are both sometimes unstable - but sometimes this is also good as it brings out a new topoi... Which reminds me...
Best wishes,
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]
Sent: Saturday, 13 April 2019 11:40 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Automated design generation and optimisation research breakthrough
Hi Terry,
I have been down this route both practically and intellectually in a number of projects, not with the power of contemporary AI, let alone quantum computing, but the problems of limits in the nature of computers, in contrast to people remain. There are various ways of describing the problem.
My best simple ways of describing it involves a knowledge of basic concepts in semiotics and linguistics. Charles Morris’s account of Semantics, Syntactics, and Pragmatics helps. Putting the matter VERY simply: Computers of any kind, including quantum computers, are extremely good at precise and fast construction and application of semantic and syntactic rules. They have NO pragmatics engine. Indeed, as far as I know, no-one has yet conceptualised, let alone implemented such a system.
Within their limited domain computers can do great things. They can also make bigger mistakes faster than any person could possibly even conceive of. Our ultimate defence, at least for the moment, is to know where the plug is so that we can pull it out.
David
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|