Skip to main content

Tom Griffiths - Five Way Interview

Tom Griffiths introduces himself: I’m a cognitive scientist — a professor of psychology and computer science at Princeton University — so I think about minds and mathematics every day. But we are in an interesting moment where people who aren’t professional cognitive scientists are grappling with the same questions: Can machines think? Is it possible to describe minds using mathematics? What are the limits of different approaches to building a mind? Will we be able to create super-human artificial intelligence? These are questions that have come into focus in the last few years with the creation of chatbots that can hold conversations and solve challenging problems, but answering the questions we have about modern AI requires going further back into the past. In writing the book, I hoped to give readers the context for this moment and some of the language for talking about it, as well as highlighting the stories of discovery that brought us to this point and that suggest possible paths forward. 

Tom's new book is The Laws of Thought.

Why does cognition interest you?

I got interested in understanding human cognition because it remains one of the genuine mysteries left to science. I was excited to discover as an undergraduate that people had used math to understand the mind, and I’ve been on that path since then. 

Why this book particularly?

I say in the acknowledgments section in the book that it is my love letter to cognitive science, and that’s absolutely true. I have enjoyed learning all the things in the book and wanted to share them with others. The way I learn things is through stories, which give more depth and texture to ideas, and so that’s the way that I put each idea in context. It helps to understand an idea when you know something about the problem that somebody was trying to solve, why solving that problem was difficult, and what other things they tried along the way. 

Back in 2016 you said you were interested in human strategies for solving decision-making problems. Does AI help or hinder this?

AI helps us understand the strategies people use for making decisions, and also suggests some ways to better support human decision-makers. Even though people are often derided as bad decision-makers, in my lab we explore the hypothesis that people actually do pretty well when you take into account the cognitive constraints that they operate under. Expressing and solving that problem is actually much harder to do than using traditional ideas about rationality, and we use sophisticated ideas from the AI literature to do so. 

Thinking about human errors in terms of resource constraints also suggests a way to help human decision-makers by providing them with extra resources, and we have explored ways to use AI to add computation into the environments where people make decisions to improve the outcomes. For readers who want to dive into the technical details, I just had another book come out with my co-authors that explores these ideas called The Rational Use of Cognitive Resources. 

What’s next?

I’m still thinking about possible directions for my next book, but want to dig deeper into the ways in which human minds and AI are different from one another. In the meantime I’m putting out the interviews I conducted for The Laws of Thought — plus lots more — as a podcast on the history of cognitive science called The Cognition Project. 

What’s exciting you at the moment?

The creation of intelligent machines is a pretty exciting moment for cognitive scientists, as for a long time we’ve only had one kind of system that could use language and answer complicated questions. This creates all sorts of opportunities to use the tools we have developed for studying human cognition to study AI systems, as well as a chance to better understand people by comparison. I’m also excited about the ways in which AI can expand the scope of our science — letting us develop theories in domains that previously resisted formalization — and accelerate discovery by helping us automate the creation of experiments and theories.

Photo © Sameer Khan

These articles will always be free - but if you'd like to support my online work, consider buying a virtual coffee or taking out a membership:


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Mathematics with Love – Mary Stopes-Roe *****

Admittedly it’s early days (this review is written in January), but this, for me, is the surprise hit of the year so far! I approached this book with trepidation, but found it absolutely delightful. It is described on the cover as the “courtship correspondence of Barnes Wallis, inventor of the bouncing bomb”, and contains a series of letters between Wallis and his cousin and eventual wife Molly Bloxham, along with some useful annotation by their daughter, Mary. The courtship itself is not without difficulties, as Wallis was 18 years older than the 17-year-old Molly at the start of the correspondence, and her father, not surprisingly, wasn’t too pleased about the interest of such an elderly suitor, but that isn’t the only reason the letters are interesting – it’s also because of maths, and Wallis’s position in the UK as the engineering hero of the Second World War. (Incidentally, it seemed very strange to see letters addressed to “Barnes” – I had always assumed Barnes Wallis was a ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why Nobody Understands Quantum Physics - Frank Verstraete and Céline Broeckaert **

It's with a heavy heart that I have to say that I could not get on with this book. The structure is all over the place, while the content veers from childish remarks to unexplained jargon. Frank Versraete is a highly regarded physicist and knows what he’s talking about - but unfortunately, physics professors are not always the best people to explain physics to a general audience and, possibly contributed to by this being a translation, I thought this book simply doesn’t work. A small issue is that there are few historical inaccuracies, but that’s often the case when scientists write history of science, and that’s not the main part of the book so I would have overlooked it. As an example, we are told that Newton's apple story originated with Voltaire. Yet Newton himself mentioned the apple story to William Stukeley in 1726. He may have made it up - but he certainly originated it, not Voltaire. We are also told that ‘Galileo discovered the counterintuitive law behind a swinging o...
Post a Comment
Read more

On Time - Jim Al-Khalili *****

By a small margin Jim Al-Khalili's The World According to Physics is my favourite of his books, both because the 'three pillars' concept at its heart works so well - but also because it's short. On Time is somewhat heavier, but thankfully not a wrist-buster. It might seem at first sight odd that a book on a subset of physics is considerably longer than one covering the whole thing, but time is one of those subjects that inevitably involves considerable complexities and needs depth. As Al-Khalili establishes, it's hard to think of any other scientific concept where our perception of it - what he refers to as manifest time or psychological time - is so different from the view from physics. Some physicists go so far as to suggest that time doesn't exist at all. In the book, Al-Khalili sets out (to my mind quite successfully) both to explain why they think this is the case, but also why it's not the best interpretation of time. I'd certainly note that I...
Post a Comment
Read more