Output orientation - Is the output is similar to what a human would create if they were to think.
Process orientation - Is the machine actually thinking, when we say its thinking.
I met someone who once drew a circuit diagram from memory. However, they didn’t draw it from inputs, operations, to outputs. They started drawing from the upper left corner, and continued drawing to the lower right, adding lines, triangles and rectangles as need be.
Rote learning can help you pass exams. At some point, it’s a meaningless difference between the utility of “knowing” how engineering works, and being able to apply methods and provide a result.
This is very much the confusion at play here, so both points are true.
1) These tools do not “Think”, in any way that counts as human thinking
2) the output is often the same as what a human thinking, would create.
IF you are concerned with only the product, then what’s the difference? If you care about the process, then this isn’t thought.
To put it in a different context. If you are a consumer, do you care if the output was hand crafted by an artisan, or do you just need something that works.
If you are a producer in competition with others, you care if your competition is selling Knock offs at a lower price.
> IF you are concerned with only the product, then what’s the difference?
The difference is substantial. If the machine was actually thinking and it understood the meaning of its training data, it would be able to generate correct output based on logic, deduction, and association. We wouldn't need to feed it endless permutations of tokens so that it doesn't trip up when the input data changes slightly. This is the difference between a system with _actual_ knowledge, and a pattern matching system.
The same can somewhat be applied to humans as well. We can all either memorize the answers to specific questions so that we pass an exam, or we can actually do the hard work, study, build out the complex semantic web of ideas in our mind, and acquire actual knowledge. Passing the exam is simply a test of a particular permutation of that knowledge, but the real test is when we apply our thought process to that knowledge and generate results in the real world.
Modern machine learning optimizes for this memorization-like approach, simply because it's relatively easy to implement, and we now have the technical capability where vast amounts of data and compute can produce remarkable results that can fool us into thinking we're dealing with artificial intelligence. We still don't know how to model semantic knowledge that doesn't require extraordinary amounts of resources. I believe classical AI research in the 20th century leaned more towards this direction (knowledge-based / expert systems, etc.), but I'm not well versed in the history.
Output orientation - Is the output is similar to what a human would create if they were to think.
Process orientation - Is the machine actually thinking, when we say its thinking.
I met someone who once drew a circuit diagram from memory. However, they didn’t draw it from inputs, operations, to outputs. They started drawing from the upper left corner, and continued drawing to the lower right, adding lines, triangles and rectangles as need be.
Rote learning can help you pass exams. At some point, it’s a meaningless difference between the utility of “knowing” how engineering works, and being able to apply methods and provide a result.
This is very much the confusion at play here, so both points are true.
1) These tools do not “Think”, in any way that counts as human thinking
2) the output is often the same as what a human thinking, would create.
IF you are concerned with only the product, then what’s the difference? If you care about the process, then this isn’t thought.
To put it in a different context. If you are a consumer, do you care if the output was hand crafted by an artisan, or do you just need something that works.
If you are a producer in competition with others, you care if your competition is selling Knock offs at a lower price.