AI’s Language Problem
No one would ever imagine that locking a baby in a featureless room with a giant stack of books would give them general intelligence. I don&#x27;t understand why AI researchers think it will work for AIs. They need bodies that are biologically connected with the rest of the biosphere, with an intrinsic biological imperative, if they are ever to understand the world. I&#x27;m not saying they have to be exactly like us, but they will only be able to understand us to the extent that they have body parts and social experiences that are analogous to ours.<p>This isn&#x27;t an engineering problem, it&#x27;s a philosophical problem: We are blind to most things. We can only see what we can relate to personally. We can use language and other symbol systems to expand our understanding by permuting and recombining our personal experiences, but everything is grounded in our interactive developmental trajectory.<p>The kitten-in-a-cart experiment demonstrates this clearly: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;io9.gizmodo.com&#x2F;the-seriously-creepy-two-kitten-experiment-1442107174" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;io9.gizmodo.com&#x2F;the-seriously-creepy-two-kitten-exper...</a>  Interaction is crucial for perception. Sensation is not experience.<p>And here&#x27;s the rub: Once you give an AI an animal-like personal developmental trajectory to use for grounding the semantics of their symbol systems, you end up with something which is not particularly different or better than a human cyborg.