“Symbols lie at the root of intelligent action”. This is a quote from the paper, Symbolic Behavior in Artificial Intelligence that inspired this series. This statement says a lot about just how important symbols and their interpretation is to how we navigate our daily lives. Even if we are mindlessly going through life fulfilling only basic needs, we are still dependent to a degree on symbols and interpreting them.
One of the chief aspects that we’ve focused on so far is the subjectivity that seems inherent in the interpretation of the symbol. Many, including the authors of the paper in question will go so far as to contend that symbols only exist in terms of their interpretation. They argue from there that interpretation is dependent on agreed upon, yet often shifting behaviors and consensus in society. If that is the case, AI should be taught how to interpret symbols based on those behaviors. It’s easy to see why this might be a tempting notion. After all, in part two of this series we talked about how the swastika’s meaning was changed from a symbol of divinity to a symbol of hatred and oppression by the Nazi’s. Symbols can often change in meaning depending on the context of the time and place. Yet, this seems like a shaky basis for training an AI. One would hope that an AI would be something that could be used universally, regardless of time and place. To base one of the most important aspects of its training on a purely local and subjective standard means it would need to constantly be retrained. Even more, it would have to be trained differently based on local culture and customs, leading to multiple versions of the AI, versions that would have as much difficulty communicating with each other as different cultures do now.
So, how to resolve this issue? If behavior, custom, and subjective interpretation doesn’t work, what does? We have to find some kind of objective standard to work from. Part of that is casting aside silly rhetorical tricks. If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, of course it makes a sound. Or one that is taken far too seriously, Schrodinger’s Cat. For those unfamiliar with it, the cat is a device used to illustrate a principle of quantum mechanics that subatomic particles can be in two states at once. That aside, the cat is a silly example. The idea is that if our feline is in a box you don’t know whether it is alive or dead, which means it is both. That’s ridiculous, the cat is either alive or dead; the fact you don’t know which doesn’t change anything. How does all this relate to our problem of symbols? Simple. The symbol exists on its own, independent of any interpretation. Just like the cat, just like the sound of the tree falling, the symbol does not need an interpreter simply to exist.
How to do that? Wherever possible we should be looking in the direction of fundamental truths of the universe and how given symbols are based on those. Math in its various forms is an excellent tool for understanding the universe and even various symbols. Many, including medieval sword makers understood this, and incorporated mathematical proportions to imbue their products with rich symbolic meaning.
Naturally, turning strictly to math won’t always be possible. How does one use math to interpret the meaning of a flag for example? Or a novel? In these cases, we should go to the original intent of the symbol’s creator. Yes, there may be additional meanings that are there outside of the creator’s intent, but those are accidental.
Given all of this, there is still the fact that meanings do change overtime, that certain understandings and expressions of symbols are local. How do we reconcile this? To paraphrase the late GK Chesterton, “men don’t disagree much on what is good, but they do disagree a great deal on how they understand that good”. The idea is that while there are definitely universal truths, those truths will be expressed differently based on a variety of different circumstances. A good place to start for training an AI would be to recognize that fact and look for the deeper truths that lie beyond the local understanding.
What’s your data worth?
