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

The Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The AI Paradox - Virginia Dignum ****

This is a really important book in the way that Virginia Dignum highlights various ways we can misunderstand AI and its abilities using a series of paradoxes. However, I need to say up front that I'm giving it four stars for the ideas: unfortunately the writing is not great. It reads more like a government report than anything vaguely readable - it really should have co-authored with a professional writer to make it accessible. Even so, I'm recommending it: like some government reports it's significant enough to make it necessary to wade through the bureaucrat speak. Why paradoxes? Dignum identifies two ways we can think about paradoxes (oddly I wrote about paradoxes recently , but with three definitions): a logical paradox such as 'this statement is false', or a paradoxical truth such as 'less is more' - the second of which seems a better to fit to the use here.  We are then presented with eight paradoxes, each of which gives some insights into aspects of t...
Post a Comment
Read more

Einstein's Fridge - Paul Sen ****

In Einstein's Fridge (interesting factoid: this is at least the third popular science book to be named after Einstein's not particularly exciting refrigerator), Paul Sen has taken on a scary challenge. As Jim Al-Khalili made clear in his excellent The World According to Physics , our physical understanding of reality rests on three pillars: relativity, quantum theory and thermodynamics. But there is no doubt that the third of these, the topic of Sen's book, is a hard sell. While it's true that these are the three pillars of physics, from the point of view of making interesting popular science, the first two might be considered pillars of gold and platinum, while the third is a pillar of salt. Relativity and quantum theory are very much of the twentieth century. They are exciting and sometimes downright weird and wonderful. Thermodynamics, by contrast, has a very Victorian feel and, well, is uninspiring. Luckily, though, thermodynamics is important enough, lying behind ...
Post a Comment
Read more