Can AI possess intuition?

[expos4ever]

Here is my take on this. I see no reason to believe that the phenomenology of mind arises from anything other than physical processes in the brain. That includes all of the phenomenology of mind, including what we call intuition.

On this premise, seems inescapable to believe that intuition is simply the manifestation of some complex physical processing in the brain. I see no reason at all to believe this process cannot be automated.

The only conceivable argument I can think of against this is that there is something distinctive about processing in "brain meat" vs processing in silicon chips. This might be true, but my "intuition" is that mind is platform independent.

 

[LastDaysJames]

I personly believe that true intuition is from the Holy Spirit speaking to our mind filtered through the emotion. So with that premise, then I would say no; anything artificial can't have intuition. Can it create mock-intuition so on the out side look like the real thing....? Perhaps.

 

[truthpls]

As I've watched this thread progress and with out going into any of the points made, I just have the hardest time believing that a machine has intuition.

From a Christian perspective, people can be possessed and controlled by spirits. So can machines I would contend. The image of the beast in bible prophesy will speak and have power to bring death sentences on people who disobey. We know that the image reflecting Satan's agenda and will directly because that is what the beast (which the AI android or whatever the image of the beast is) is all about. A physical embodiment of Satan as a man.
So yes AI can have 'intuition' because it can be controlled by spirits. That means the actual intuition may not be from the robot/android/computer but from hell itself using the AI as a conduit

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Prof Daniel Dennett said:


Dreyfus didn't think an AI could have intuition.


The audience laughed but I do not find that funny. That's a trivialization of intuition and it is not helpful toward a serious investigation of intuition. Then Dennett contradicted himself:


But according to his own definition, the computer program can trace its steps of long division and explain its logic to the asker as AI chats like Qwen can do today.

Can an AI simulate intuition?

Yes, according to Dennett's trivial example.

Can an AI possess real intuition?

How do people recognize one another? We do it intuitively, without consciously analyzing a person's facial features. Similarly, AI can perform pattern recognition using vector-based models without requiring a step-by-step analysis of facial characteristics to reach a conclusion. A deep learning model trained on millions of medical images can "intuitively" identify diseases in new images by recognizing subtle patterns. In this regard, AI demonstrates a form of pattern recognition intuition.

In contrast, an AI chess player can make moves that appear intuitive to human observers, yet they are actually based on analyzing move-by-move contingencies, looking 10 moves ahead. If you ask why it makes a specific move, it can trace its reasoning and explain its steps.

Another type of intuition relies on heuristics. For instance, when presented with two different answers, the simpler one is likely correct. For another example, when someone tells me that he is a jazz player, I immediately think of a saxophone. Of course, my intuition could be wrong. AI can utilize heuristics similarly.

What other kinds of human intuition are there? Can an AI replicate them all?

Can an AI have intuition?

Today's AI possesses some aspects of human intuition already. Perhaps in the future, AI can develop the full spectrum of human intuition. I don't know.

I would say no. ... but that's because I don't believe intuition is a real thing, and the term is nearly synonymous with superstition.

So, I'm not a real big fan of the idea of "intuition." I think people are naturally concerned and mindful about their ongoing existence and our minds are built for forming plausibility in forsight for survival. Some of us are good at this and some of us aren't.

 

[SelfSim]

I would say no. ... but that's because I don't believe intuition is a real thing, and the term is nearly synonymous with superstition.

Interesting .. if we were to view intuition as a testably instinctive behaviour exhibited by many biologicial species, (the latter of which, also present no evidence of superstitious behaviours), then might that perspective enable us to visualise the possibility of an instinctive intuition of a type limited to only AIs .. (but also not shared by biological species)?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Interesting .. if we were to view intuition as a testably instinctive behaviour exhibited by many biologicial species, (the latter of which, also present no evidence of superstitious behaviours), then might that perspective enable us to visualise the possibility of an instinctive intuition of a type limited to only AIs .. (but also not shared by biological species)?

I think the use of the term suffers from semantic overreach and/or ambiguity. Take the case of the average Webster's denotative choices for "intuition"

​

Definition of INTUITION

the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference; immediate apprehension or cognition; knowledge or conviction gained by intuition… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

But, if you have either a different definition to add, or something scientific to show me from the field of animal neuro-science, I'm all open to being presented with the evidence.

 

[SelfSim]

I think the use of the term suffers from semantic overreach and/or ambiguity. Take the case of the average Webster's denotative choices for "intuition"

Sure .. I agree.

But, if you have either a different definition to add, or something scientific to show me from the field of animal neuro-science, I'm all open to being presented with the evidence.

Science doesn't really care much about lexical dictionary definitions, (ie: we see scientists altering them all time, upon the presentation of new direct evidence or new contexts).
The scientific method starts with observations .. not definitions. So the conditional part of: 'if you have .. a different definition', is thus not a particularly useful condition from the scientific viewpoint .. (its an irrelevant condition, really).