I'm not a techie, so perhaps someone can help me understand this: AFAIK, no theoretical computer scientist predicted emergence in AI models. Doesn't that suggest that the field of theoretical computer science (or theoretical AI, if you will) is suspect? It's like Lord Kelvin saying that heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible a decade before the Wright brothers' first flight.
> Doesn't that suggest that the field of theoretical computer science (or theoretical AI, if you will) is suspect?
Consider the story of Charles Darwin, who knew evolution existed, but who was so afraid of public criticism that he delayed publishing his findings so long that he nearly lost his priority to Wallace.
For contrast, consider the story of Alfred Wegener, who aggressively promoted his idea of (what was later called) plate tectonics, but who was roundly criticized for his radical idea. By the time plate tectonics was tested and proven, Wegener was long gone.
These examples suggest that, in science, it's not the claims you make, it's the claims you prove with evidence.
I’m not even clear on the AI def of “emergent behavior”. The AI crowd mixes in terms and concepts from biology to describe things that are dramatically more simple. For example, using “neuron” to really mean a formula calculation or function. Neurons are a lot more than that and not even understood completely to begin with however developers use the term as if they have neurons implemented in software.
Maybe it’s a variation of the “assume a frictionless spherical horse” problem but it’s very confusing.
I believe it's been predicted in traffic planning and highway design and tested in via simulation and in field experiments. Use of self driving cars to modify traffic behaviors and decrease traffic jams is a field of study these days.
