From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!sdd.hp.com!mips!darwin.sura.net!cs.ucf.edu!news Sun May 31 19:04:11 EDT 1992
Article 5912 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!sdd.hp.com!mips!darwin.sura.net!cs.ucf.edu!news
>From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Grounding: Virtual vs. Real
Message-ID: <1992May26.122941.8238@cs.ucf.edu>
Date: 26 May 92 12:29:41 GMT
References: <1992May26.031148.27458@news.media.mit.edu>
Sender: news@cs.ucf.edu (News system)
Organization: University of Central Florida
Lines: 57

In article <1992May26.031148.27458@news.media.mit.edu> minsky@media.mit.edu  
(Marvin Minsky) writes:
> In article <1992May26.022413.14151@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil  
Rickert) writes:
> >In article <1992May25.214006.29965@Princeton.EDU>  
harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad) writes:
> 
> >>The only way to get confused here is to make the mistake that when the
> >>input to the candidate is computer-generated rather than real, then the
> >>candidate may as well just be a computer too! The reality of the
> >>transduction should be a partial reminder that this is not all there is
> >>to it; the plane analogy should help too.
> >
> >But the plane
> >analogy certainly does not help.  For the fact is that aircraft designers
> >often use numerical models of wind tunnel tests, and they claim that for
> >some purposes these pure computer simulations give them more and better
> >information than does a test in a real wind tunnel.
> 
> I find myself very much on Rickert's side of this argument.  Here is
> another item related to the airplane analogy.  A flying instructor told me
> that each hour in a modern simulator is worth several hours in a real
> airplane.  
>          .....
> SO, RATHER THAN EMPHASIZE "GROUNDING IN THE PHYSICAL WORLD" -- OR
> ARGUE WHETHER SIMULATION CAN EVER BE MORE THAN A PALE APPROXIMATION --
> LET'S TAKE THE OPPOSITE VIEW.  THE WORLD IS BASICALLY ILL-STRUCTURED
> DRECK. WHATEVER GROUNDING "IS" (AND I DOUBT THAT THIS CONCEPT HAS
> MUCH VALUE) IT WILL TURN OUT IN THE END TO BE A SECOND RATE WAY TO
> LEARN TO 'UNDERSTAND' THE WORLD.

Clearly, if physics can model the world perfectly via computation, then
the grounding can be carried out in a computer, the TTT test can be
conducted entirely in a computer, and the AI under test can reside entirely
in a computer.

It is not so clear that physics can even do this in principle.  Quantum
mechanics and chaos theory illustrate fundamental limitations in the 
ability to simulate via computation.  Physics can predict average values 
under many circumstances, but the TTT must deal with actually realized 
values, not averages.  

It thus seems that there is ample room for differences between the 
capabilites of an AI "grounded" in the physical world, and an AI
reacting to a computer simulation of the world.

P.S. I believe the enhanced value of simulation training is related to 
the old joke: "Flying is hours of boredom punctuated by moments
of terror."  Simulators let you pack in more moments of terror, even
sometimes fatal ones.

--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central Florida
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059
clarke@acme.ucf.edu


