Re: Doubletalk as usual
"Has it occurred to you that human intelligence involves rather a lot of 'Analysed Probabilities'? When we navigate our way through a complex world, that's pretty much exactly what we do"
I'm not being a sarcastic smart-arse here, but yes - that's why I wrote those specific words. One of my core beliefs is that a lot of the techniques employed in software or other machine systems are either founded in or an approximation of human behavior. I upvoted you because of this:-)
One of my favorite 'machine process=human process' examples is the IP L2 MAC to L3 IP address discovery process - the machines look things up with ARP or Neighbor discovery, whereas humans build their own L2 E.164 address to L3 Name database as required, or for reverse translation we used to have the 'phone book' which gave us Name-->E.164.
Another is the retry process. You'll find a machine protocol (TCP, Q.921 etc) transmits a message and expects a positive acknowledgement. If the ACK doesn't arrive within 'N' seconds, the session is torn down. Same with humans on a mobile/cellular voice call : your 'Hello! Are you there?' gets repeated 'N' times before realizing the mobile terminal is out of coverage and you terminate the the call.
It's no different with the 'AI' bollocks. Machine models stem from 'learning', where as humans also learn as we go along. Once we've finished learning/training, it takes humans some time to acquire the skills necessary to communicate without error. We can do this as we learn continuously and update our internal 'model' accordingly. IFAIK, the machines cannot yet update the model themselves on the fly or even figure out they are wrong.
Form follows function. If you wish AI to ape human intelligence, then of course it MUST use human processes. Humans like 'black and white' decisions. machines prefer boolean:-)
I suspect that @LionelB and I aren't too far apart:-)