|Mind Over Machine|
The subtitle for the Dreyfus book captivated my attention: The Power of Human Intuition and Expertise in the Era of the Computer. Assuming intuition was based on experience and training, they did not touch on intuition in the large. By showing computers could not emulate intuition in the small, it was clear intuition in the large was computationally out of the question. Added emphasis appears in red, and my reactions are enclosed in a box: (Note 141)
Despite what you may have read in magazines and newspapers, . . . twenty five years of artificial intelligence research has lived up to very few of its promises and has failed to yield any evidence that it ever will. The time has come to ask what has gone wrong and what we can reasonably expect from computer intelligence. How closely can computers processing facts and making inferences approach human intelligence? . . .
In short, we want to put the debate about the computer in perspective by clearing the air of false optimism and unrealistic expectations. The debate about what computers should do is properly about social values and institutional forms. But before we can profitably discuss what computers should do we have to be clear about what they can do. Our bottom line is that computers as reasoning machines can't match human intuition and expertise, so in determining what computers should do we have to contrast their capacities with the more generous gifts possessed by the human mind. . . .
We are not proposing to exalt the intuitive at the expense of the analytic abilities so highly developed in our Western culture. . . . The hoary old split between the mystical and the analytic will not do in the computer age, for neither pole of that often misleading dualism names the ordinary, nonmystical intuition that we believe is the core of human intelligence and skill. Further, we shall show that analysis and intuition work together in the human mind. Although intuition is the final fruit of skill acquisition, analytic thinking is necessary for beginners learning a new skill. It is also useful at the highest levels of expertise, where it can sharpen and clarify intuitive insights. . . .
Thus Stuart . . . now cautions people against making the same first step fallacy in operations research that I observed in artificial intelligence. He points out that while operations research had early successes in modeling operational problems in the military and industry . . . that is no reason to believe that the same mathematical modeling techniques can tell experienced . . . business executives whether to diversify their companies, or public policy makers how to allocate their budgets. Problems involving deep understanding built up on the basis of vast experience will not yield - as do simple, well defined problems that exist in isolation from much of human experience - to formal mathematical or computer analysis. . . .
A careful study of the skill acquisition process shows that a person usually passes through at least five stages of qualitatively different perceptions of his task and/or mode of decision making as his skill improves. Understanding the dynamic process of human skill acquisition provides the framework for our investigation of machine intelligence. Once we adequately appreciate the full development of human skilled behavior, we can ask how far along this path the digital computer can reasonably be expected to progress. . . . The five stages we shall lay out are called novice, advanced beginner, competent, proficient, and expert. . . .
Society must clearly distinguish its members who "know how" from those that "know that." It must encourage its children to cultivate their intuitive capacities in order that they may achieve expertise, not encourage them to become human logic machines. And once expertise has been attained, it must be recognized and valued for what it is. To confuse the common sense, wisdom, and mature judgment of the expert with today's artificial intelligence, or to value them less highly, would be a genuine stupidity. . . .
The chips are down, the choice is being made right now, and at all levels of society computer type rationality is winning out. Experts are an endangered species. If we fail to put logic machines in their proper place, as aids to human beings with expert intuition, then we shall end up servants supplying data to our competent machines. Should calculative rationality triumph, no one will notice that something is missing, but now, while we still know what expert judgment is, let us use that expert judgment to preserve it.