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).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sure .. I agree.

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).

You're apparently missing my underlying point. Let me be a little clearer: on the colloquial level, I'm only focusing at the moment on the more common reference people make to the term, "intuition," the one represented in Webster's first entry:

the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference​

​

Forget the other possible denotations or even the 'scientific' understanding of intuition in more operative terms. Taking just the usual denotation above in red, how would you operationalize your science to study it? To me, it sounds like it would quickly turn into a study of supposed paranormal phenomena such as ESP, clairvoyance, mediums and other pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo.

That is the point I'm trying to get to in what I began saying earlier. However, I know full well and good that you scientists have a more nuanced referent in mind, particularly when it might be applied to the sagacity of the possible mind of an A.I.

 

[expos4ever]

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)?

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)?

In other words, you are raising the possibility that intuition is platform dependent. That certainly seems like a possibility to me, although, as stated in previous posts, I believe what we call intuition is, in fact, platform independent. And hence, we can create AIs with the same faculty of intuition that humans possess.

 

[SelfSim]

You're apparently missing my underlying point. Let me be a little clearer: on the colloquial level, I'm only focusing at the moment on the more common reference people make to the term, "intuition," the one represented in Webster's first entry:

the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference​

​

Forget the other possible denotations or even the 'scientific' understanding of intuition in more operative terms. Taking just the usual denotation above in red, how would you operationalize your science to study it? To me, it sounds like it would quickly turn into a study of supposed paranormal phenomena such as ESP, clairvoyance, mediums and other pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo.

I don't understand your issue here.
You just demonstrated my point about why scientific research doesn't start out assuming dictionary definitions as being true.
One ends up in a circular argument.

That is the point I'm trying to get to in what I began saying earlier. However, I know full well and good that you scientists have a more nuanced referent in mind, particularly when it might be applied to the sagacity of the possible mind of an A.I.

Really? What 'nuanced referent' are you assuming as being so on behalf of all 'you scientists', there?
(Now where's my flaming head avatar .. I know I put it somewhere on my SSD drive .. y'know its so capacious I just can't find it .. sigh .. isn't that just typical eh? )

 

[SelfSim]

In other words, you are raising the possibility that intuition is platform dependent.

Well, firstly I don't know what model you are assuming when you use the term 'platform' there.
I'm starting out from more like: 'I don't know what intuition is .. but maybe we can investigate from what we can see AI doing(?)'

That certainly seems like a possibility to me, although, as stated in previous posts, I believe what we call intuition is, in fact, platform independent.

Right .. I get it .. that's what you're assuming to be true before you commence investigations, yes(?)
That doesn't look like a sound initialisation basis to adopt prior to scientific investigation, to me(?)

And hence, we can create AIs with the same faculty of intuition that humans possess.

Circularity .. We're trying to figure out what AI represents .. and not to confirm our going-in assumptions.
(Please see my prior response to 2PhiloVoid, above).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't understand your issue here.
You just demonstrated my point about why scientific research doesn't start out assuming dictionary definitions as being true.
One ends up in a circular argument.

It's not an issue per say; rather, it's a point of clarification. When I say that "I don't believe in intuition," what I mean precisely is in reference to, and only to, this colloquial denotation. If this denotation absolutely isn't what cognitive and a.i. scientists are precisely referring to, but to some other denotation of meaning, one more attuned for observation and measure in relation to what we know of human cognition and the ability to infer, then ............. maybe "intuition" is a thing. Whether an A.I. can attain that "intuition" at some point then becomes a live talking point for me.

Really? What 'nuanced referent' are you assuming as being so on behalf of all 'you scientists', there?
(Now where's my flaming head avatar .. I know I put it somewhere on my SSD drive .. y'know its so capacious I just can't find it .. sigh .. isn't that just typical eh? )

Whichever working definition of "intuition" they have in mind about mind and about potential A.I. cognitive capacities. Y'know, the sort that only you scientists know about and about which us philosophers are completely and utterly clueless about since, well, we never, ever, ever study that sort of thing............and if we do find a source, we toss it into the Humean Fire.

 

[SelfSim]

It's not an issue per say; rather, it's a point of clarification. When I say that "I don't believe in intuition," what I mean precisely is in reference to, and only to, this colloquial denotation. If this denotation absolutely isn't what cognitive and a.i. scientists are precisely referring to, but to some other denotation of meaning, one more attuned for observation and measure in relation to what we know of human cognition and the ability to infer, then ............. maybe "intuition" is a thing. Whether an A.I. can attain that "intuition" at some point then becomes a live talking point for me.
...
Whichever working definition of "intuition" they have in mind about mind and about potential A.I. cognitive capacities. Y'know, the sort that only you scientists know about and about which us philosophers are completely and utterly clueless about since, well, we never, ever, ever study that sort of thing............and if we do find a source, we toss it into the Humean Fire.

Hmm .. (thinking, perhaps dangerously, out aloud here), I know from various of his Podcasts, (as an example of an AI scientist), Lex Fridman tends to lean towards the notion of, say, consciousness, being a property of the interaction between two physical systems (see footnote for more background).
Perhaps the same notion can be applied when investigating this 'intuition' thing? This approach would skirt around the specific issue of definition, by using human responses on their expereinces as the test subject for gathering test data.
The approach throws the entire gamut of human subjectivity into the test itself and the outcome would then be on a probabilistic basis(?)
I'm not entirely sold on the idea .. but I don't mind it too much either ...
The approach is along the same lines as I mentioned before, where I suggested that we should use AI interaction experiences to learn more about what we mean by our own 'intuition', which then I choose to interpret as being the real underlying, yet undistinguished, question being asked in the OP(?) .. I (still) dunno though ..

Footnote:
His general thinking is that if we have the same experience of interacting with other living creatures when we interact with robots, that is good enough. It doesn’t matter if the robot is sharing the same experience, for the experience to exist. Our interactions with robots can be conscious, even if we are not both always conscious independently. By extension, perhaps the interaction of two robots could be conscious, too, but with a different quality to experience than our own.