Can AI possess intuition?

[dlamberth]

You should ask how does AI conclude that is comparative basis of 'a true' intuition actually exists?

And this in answer to your question...

AI doesn't inherently "conclude" or form philosophical judgments in the same way humans do. However, we can explore how an AI, based on its design and capabilities, might approach the concept of "true intuition."

1. Lack of Subjective Experience:​

AI, in its current form, doesn’t have subjective experiences or consciousness. It doesn’t have emotions or an awareness of itself. Therefore, it cannot understand or assess the human concept of "true intuition" in a meaningful way because intuition is deeply tied to the subjective experience of being human.

AI can only process data, identify patterns, and make decisions based on algorithms, but these processes are not accompanied by an internal sense or "feeling" that humans would describe as intuition.

2. Pattern Recognition vs. Intuition:​

When AI is trained to recognize patterns, it’s essentially following a mathematical process—learning from data through models like neural networks. While this is often compared to how humans recognize patterns intuitively, AI doesn’t evaluate these patterns from a "perspective" of whether they are truly "intuitive" or not. For AI, everything is based on calculations, probabilities, and optimization, rather than a feeling of “gut instinct.” Therefore, it doesn’t conclude that intuition, as humans experience it, either exists or doesn’t—it just performs tasks based on the data it’s trained on.

3. Philosophical Conclusions About Intuition:​

If AI were to try to analyze whether "true intuition" exists, it could only process existing data on what humans have said about intuition. It could cite that intuition is often defined as a type of understanding that comes without conscious reasoning, or it could identify it as a psychological phenomenon influenced by cognitive biases, experiences, and subconscious processing. However, AI wouldn’t form a belief or conclusion about whether intuition "truly exists" because that requires a level of personal, subjective engagement with the concept—something AI lacks.

4. Comparative Basis:​

If the question is whether AI could compare its own decision-making processes to human intuition, it might be able to identify areas where its pattern recognition mirrors aspects of human behavior that might be described as intuitive. However, AI would not be able to comprehend whether those decisions qualify as "true intuition" in the human sense. It could only recognize patterns of behavior that appear to align with human intuition based on predefined comparisons or definitions. AI would essentially be performing an analytical comparison based on data, rather than forming a subjective understanding or judgment.

5. Does AI Recognize Its Limitations?​

An important point is that AI, through its design, can recognize its own limitations. It can be programmed to identify areas where it doesn’t have enough data or where the complexity of human decision-making exceeds its capabilities. However, recognizing that it lacks something (like intuition) is a far cry from concluding what "true intuition" is.

Conclusion:​

AI doesn’t conclude that "true intuition" exists in the way humans do, because it doesn’t engage in philosophical thought or possess self-awareness. It can analyze patterns in data and produce outputs based on these patterns, but it can’t form conclusions about the subjective experience of intuition in a way that involves any personal or existential understanding. It’s limited to the scope of data and programming it’s given, which makes it unable to grasp or philosophically conclude what intuition means in the context of human experience.

 

[SelfSim]

Here's what ChatGPT has to say:

AI's advanced pattern recognition might seem similar to human intuition at times, but they are fundamentally different in nature. Here's why:

1. Mechanistic vs. Cognitive:​

• AI Pattern Recognition: AI uses statistical methods to detect patterns based on vast amounts of data. It doesn’t "understand" the data in the same way humans do. It relies on algorithms to optimize outcomes based on input data, like recognizing patterns in images, sounds, or text, but without any real comprehension of the context or meaning.
• Human Intuition: Intuition in humans is more than just pattern recognition. It’s often the result of a combination of conscious learning, subconscious knowledge, emotions, experiences, and a deeper, sometimes inexplicable, "gut feeling" that guides decisions. Human intuition is more subjective and not solely dependent on processing large amounts of data.

2. Data Dependency:​

• AI: AI requires data to function and improve. The more data it has, the better it can recognize patterns and make predictions. However, if AI is confronted with a situation or data outside of its training, it struggles and cannot "feel" its way through new experiences like humans can.
• Humans: Human intuition can often make leaps of logic or sense out of limited information. Humans are capable of reasoning through situations even without all the data, filling in gaps with personal knowledge and experience. Intuition is also shaped by emotional intelligence, which AI currently doesn't possess.

3. Context Awareness:​

• AI: AI can recognize patterns but may not fully understand the context. It can, for instance, recognize a face but not know the emotional context behind that face. It lacks a true understanding of social, historical, or emotional contexts that influence human intuition.
• Humans: Intuition in humans is deeply embedded in a wider context, influenced by cultural, emotional, and personal experiences. It’s not just recognizing a pattern, but also understanding the "why" behind that pattern and what it might imply in a given situation.

4. Consciousness and Experience:​

• AI: AI does not have consciousness or personal experiences. It lacks the internal "sense" that humans have when they feel something is right or wrong, or when they instinctively understand a problem.
• Humans: Intuition is informed by personal experiences, emotions, and a consciousness of being. This makes human intuition rich, nuanced, and capable of integrating a wide range of factors beyond mere data.

5. Flexibility and Creativity:​

• AI: While AI can produce creative outputs (like generating art or writing), its creativity is based on recombining existing patterns rather than creating something entirely new from a place of deep, novel insight.
• Humans: Human intuition can involve original thought, creative leaps, and solving problems in entirely new ways. It’s not always based on prior data or experience, and humans can feel their way into unfamiliar situations, adapting more fluidly to change.

In Conclusion:​

AI's pattern recognition is incredibly powerful and can mimic intuition in some ways, especially in structured tasks. But it lacks the depth, context, and subjective qualities of human intuition. It’s driven by algorithms and data, whereas intuition is a multifaceted process that involves emotions, experience, and a complex understanding of context.

Thank you .. a much more detailed response.

One wonders what effect AI will produce by way of constraining humans' subjective emotionalilty in real-time decision making(?)
Ie: Just as nature constrains us in so many ways, (which subsequently motivates our creativity and ingenuity in working our way around those constraints), it would appear AI is destined to act on us in the same way nature does.

Therefore AI will become nature!(?)

 

[FireDragon76]

I'm thinking they can't have an inner knowing. AI is more like Spock, emotions and irrational thinking do not seem to be present.

Actually, large language models have more in common with human intuition than logic. Early AI models were really bad at logic, sometimes they couldn't even do simple word problems.

 

[Ophiolite]

I really do not understand why I need to define the word intuition to support my claim that AI cannot possess.

Anyone commenting on this thread knows what intuition means. The OP of the thread knows what intuition means.

Why do I need to define it to support my claim?

Because all terms in science should be defined, else much fruitless discussion and argument will occur. Earlier this questions was asked:

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

To which I was about to respond, "It depends upon how you define intution". A definition is not only useful, it is essential, otherwise we are just wagging our tongues in the breeze. However, since that has been established for decades as the modus operandi of the forum, far be from me to break with tradition.

 

[tonychanyt]

It depends upon how you define intution

Right. Read my OP for the definition

 

[Ophiolite]

Right. Read my OP for the definition

Your OP mentions, but does not diligently present, other people's definitions of intution; you give examples of intuitive behaviour, but nowhere do you actually define intuition. It's almost as if you expected your reader to inuitively understand what you mean by it.
Would you like to give it another go, so that we can have a meaningful discussion about it?

 

[tonychanyt]

Your OP mentions, but does not diligently present, other people's definitions of intution; you give examples of intuitive behaviour, but nowhere do you actually define intuition. It's almost as if you expected your reader to inuitively understand what you mean by it.

You are right

Would you like to give it another go, so that we can have a meaningful discussion about it?

Intuition could mean :

1. simple rules of thumbs,
2. some subconscious calculations that cannot be articulated,
3. some quick instinctive responses.

All all cases, intuition is a fast response in real time.

 

[Ophiolite]

Intuition could mean :

1. simple rules of thumbs,
2. some subconscious calculations that cannot be articulated,
3. some quick instinctive responses.

All all cases, intuition is a fast response in real time.

1. Rule of Thumb
I would consider this to be a very colloquial usage. It would describe a probably unsubstantiated belief that concepts experienced, or acquired by reputation, would form an readily accessible guide for assessing the nature of observations. I can see that such a categorisation might be useful to an individual in providing an internal explanation for how they reach certain decisions, or perceptions, but its value for external discussion seems limited. Perhaps I am missing something.

2. Subconscious calculations that cannot be articulated
This translates as "something happens somewhere, but I have no idea how it might work". Again. I'm not sure how a "black box" definition of intuition can facilitate discussion of the topic. I stand ready to be corrected.

3. Quick, instinctive responses
For the first time a potentially relevant word has crept into your suggestions: "instinctive". At least, relevant if you are using it in a scientific and not a colloquial sense. I am sanguine about the prospect that you have done so. If we pick up a very hot object then we may instinctively drop it. That seems to me a reasonable statement, but I would not say that I would intuitively drop it. I might say I had intuitively avoided picking it up because the object was in a fire, but that's just a variant of case 1., in other words "common sense", another vague concept.

While there are hints of your thoughts on what intuition is, I am not really any closer to seeing your definition. That makes if difficult to talk about it. (Although I have managed over two hundred and seventy words on the subject.)

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I still say no, AI cannot possess intuition, regardless of intuition.

 

[expos4ever]

I still say no, AI cannot possess intuition, regardless of intuition.

I am a little surprised at your reply. If I recall correctly, and I may be wrong about this, from a number of your posts I have inferred that you are a "physicalist". If, like me, you believe the brain is essentially a complex machine, why would AI not be able to reproduce the human phenomena of intuition?

Do you believe that it is because the "meat" vs "silicon" distinction?

 

[WindySoli]

i've been working with Ai for a loong time...
simulated intuition is not intuition, which is something that comes from the spiritual part of the human...
to trust in simulated intuition is very dangerous ground and can lead to self-deception.

 

[Ophiolite]

If intuition is, as it seems most likely to me to be, a subconscious process of pattern recognition and consequence projection then AI should certainly be capable of it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I am a little surprised at your reply. If I recall correctly, and I may be wrong about this, from a number of your posts I have inferred that you are a "physicalist". If, like me, you believe the brain is essentially a complex machine, why would AI not be able to reproduce the human phenomena of intuition?

Do you believe that it is because the "meat" vs "silicon" distinction?

I do not believe that AI is capable of intuition, by any definition because I've never seen any evidence to assert or even show that AI can be intuitive.

 

[Ophiolite]

I do not believe that AI is capable of intuition, by any definition because I've never seen any evidence to assert or even show that AI can be intuitive.

If you accept my speculative definition, are you then declaring that
a) AI does engage in pattern recognition? [Which it does]
b) AI does not project consequences of patterns? [Which it does]
c) And, AI does not have the equivalent of a subconscious? [Which its observed failure to recognise prior assertions, strongly suggests that it does]

Either you find fault with my definition - in which case I should like to understand what is wrong with it, or you contest a), b), or c), in which case I would like to know on what basis you do so.

 

[partinobodycular]

I do not believe that AI is capable of intuition, by any definition because I've never seen any evidence to assert or even show that AI can be intuitive.

It seems to me that intuition is exactly what 'Watson' was using. In fact it's exactly what every LLM is using. They're simply choosing the correct response, not based upon any particular logic or reasoning, but simply because experience/training makes it intuitively/probabilistically correct.

As I see it the only difference between the human and the AI is that one recognizes the lack of logic and reasoning, while the other one doesn't. Recognizing it as intuition may indeed be something that only a conscious agent can do, but acting intuitively may be something that an AI, particularly an LLM, is specifically designed to do.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If you accept my speculative definition, are you then declaring that
a) AI does engage in pattern recognition? [Which it does]
b) AI does not project consequences of patterns? [Which it does]
c) And, AI does not have the equivalent of a subconscious? [Which its observed failure to recognise prior assertions, strongly suggests that it does]

Either you find fault with my definition - in which case I should like to understand what is wrong with it, or you contest a), b), or c), in which case I would like to know on what basis you do so.

It seems to me that intuition is exactly what 'Watson' was using. In fact it's exactly what every LLM is using. They're simply choosing the correct response, not based upon any particular logic or reasoning, but simply because experience/training makes it intuitively/probabilistically correct.

As I see it the only difference between the human and the AI is that one recognizes the lack of logic and reasoning, while the other one doesn't. Recognizing it as intuition may indeed be something that only a conscious agent can do, but acting intuitively may be something that an AI is specifically designed to do.

Because nothing AI is doing is instinctive, as in 'acting on instinct'. It's all just a set program that is put into it. It's a computer.

Also, I do feel the need to admit that I am of the camp that too many people are giving far too much credit to AI, either in the ones who think it's going to become SkyNet or the ones who think it's going to become like Kitt, then it really deserves. It's a tool, nothing more.

 

[Ophiolite]

Because nothing AI is doing is instinctive, as in 'acting on instinct'. It's all just a set program that is put into it. It's a computer.

Also, I do feel the need to admit that I am of the camp that too many people are giving far too much credit to AI, either in the ones who think it's going to become SkyNet or the ones who think it's going to become like Kitt, then it really deserves. It's a tool, nothing more.

So, to clarify, you dispute my definition on the basis that your definition of intuition requires inclusion of the concept of "instinctive". Is that correct?

This is despite the fact that instinct is a set of behaviours encoded in the DNA of humans and other animals. i.e. equivalent to the programming of a computer. (And you oversimplify to the point of being wrong, that it is "all just a set of program that is put into it". You continue, "It's a computer", Sure, and I am just a bunch of interconnected neurons.)

You may be correct that it is a tool, but it is certainly the most remarkable tool I have ever seen by an order of magnitude, or two. And like all tools its benefits and dangers are correspondingly enlarged. And that power comes, in part, from something that looks remarkably like intuition. (And please note, like human intution, there are no assurances the intuition is correct in each instnace - oh, so very human!)

 

[SelfSim]

Because nothing AI is doing is instinctive, as in 'acting on instinct'. It's all just a set program that is put into it. It's a computer.

Also, I do feel the need to admit that I am of the camp that too many people are giving far too much credit to AI, either in the ones who think it's going to become SkyNet or the ones who think it's going to become like Kitt, then it really deserves. It's a tool, nothing more.

Technology can be a driver for, (or a constraint on), the evolution of the human mind. Our thinking is shaped by it, as much as we shaped it. (Eg: need I cite more than the internet, cars, trains, aircraft, etc ?)

I'm not at all sure such simple observations are giving technology 'credit' or not though .. that issue seems superfluous to the demonstrable evidence of its agency role in evolution of the human mind(?)

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So, to clarify, you dispute my definition on the basis that your definition of intuition requires inclusion of the concept of "instinctive". Is that correct?

This is despite the fact that instinct is a set of behaviours encoded in the DNA of humans and other animals. i.e. equivalent to the programming of a computer. (And you oversimplify to the point of being wrong, that it is "all just a set of program that is put into it". You continue, "It's a computer", Sure, and I am just a bunch of interconnected neurons.)

You may be correct that it is a tool, but it is certainly the most remarkable tool I have ever seen by an order of magnitude, or two. And like all tools its benefits and dangers are correspondingly enlarged. And that power comes, in part, from something that looks remarkably like intuition. (And please note, like human intution, there are no assurances the intuition is correct in each instnace - oh, so very human!)

Technology can be a driver for, (or a constraint on), the evolution of the human mind. Our thinking is shaped by it, as much as we shaped it. (Eg: need I cite more than the internet, cars, trains and aircraft ?)

I'm not at all sure such simple observations are giving technology 'credit' or not though .. that issue seems superfluous to the demonstrable evidence of its agency role in evolution of the human mind(?)

I've stated my case. I have no desire nor see a need to pursue it further. Smarter people than I can waffle until the cows come home on whether to say that AI is 'human-like' or not, but to me, it's nothing more than a glorified computer program that too many people give credit too for no good reason.

 

[SelfSim]

This is despite the fact that instinct is a set of behaviours encoded in the DNA of humans and other animals.

I, (FWIW), like that idea either as speculation, or when formed as a testable hypothesis.

(As it being a fact though, is an entirely different matter altogether).