Sublime

Howard Gardner’s ideas of multiple intelligences

We don’t know what the full taxonomy of intelligence is right now. Some traits of human thinking will be common (as common as bilateral symmetry, segmentation, and tubular guts are in biology), but the possibility space of viable minds will likely contain traits far outside what we have evolved. It is not necessary that this type of thinking be fas

In the face of such overwhelming evidence of the inadequacy of the machine model to the study of living organisms, why, then, does this product of the mid-Victorian mindset persist? One reason is its simplicity. We are familiar with machines, and because they are what we are used to making, taking apart and putting together, it is perhaps a natural

System 2 (slow) processes require conscious, step-by-step thought.

The field of artificial (general) intelligence has made no progress because there is an unsolved philosophical problem at its heart: we do not understand how creativity works. Once that has been solved, programming it will not be difficult.

Classical AI techniques, of the sort that were common long before deep learning become popular, are much better at compositionality, and are a useful tool for building cognitive models, but thus far they haven’t been nearly as

learning but poor at compositionality and the construction of cognitive models; the other, classical AI, incorporates compositionality and the construction of cognitive models, but is mediocre at best at learning.

Piaget, J. (2001) The Psychology of Intelligence. London: Routledge.

Dr. Carol Dweck, a leading researcher in the field of developmental psychology, makes the distinction between entity and incremental theories of intelligence.