Advertisement

Conclusions and Outlooks

  • Tiansi DongEmail author
Chapter
  • 235 Downloads
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 910)

Abstract

Capable of classifying huge amount of texts, translating hundreds of languages, predicting the rise and fall of global markets, even driving unmanned automobiles, Deep Learning systems are the hope of the fifth industrial revolution. However, recent studies have found that Deep Learning systems can be easily manipulated, i.e., in image recognition and in natural language understanding. The nature of one system of the mind (System 1), which Deep Learning systems simulates, dictates that any given data would be put into a coherent story, even at the cost of logic. Another system of the mind (System 2) manages logical thinking by following rules and structures, which symbolic AI simulates. How to combine Deep Learning with symbolic structures remains an open debate.

References

  1. Bauckhage, C., Schulz, D., & Hecker, D. (2019a). Informed Machine Learning for Industry. ERCIM News, 2019 (116).Google Scholar
  2. Bauckhage, C., Sifa, R., & Dong, T. (2019b). Prototypes within minimum enclosing balls. In ICANN-19 (pp. 365–376). Germany: Munich.Google Scholar
  3. Cremers, A. B., Thrun, S., & Burgard, W. (1994). From AI technology research to applications. In Proceedings of the IFIP Congress 94. Hamburg, Germany, Elsevier Science Publisher.Google Scholar
  4. de Laguna, T. (1922). Point, line and surface as sets of solids. The Journal of Philosophy, 19, 449–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fodor, J. A., & Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1988). Connectionism and cognitive architecture-a critical analysis. Cognition, 28(1–2), 3–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Freidin, R. (1988). Connectionism and the study of language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1, 34–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Glasgow, J., Narayanan, N. H., & Chandrasekaran, B. (Eds.). (1995). Diagrammatic reasoning: Cognitive and computational perspectives. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Grenon, P., & Smith, B. (2004). SNAP and SPAN: Towards dynamic spatial ontology. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 4(1), 69–103. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  9. Hunter, L. E. (1988). Some memory, but no mind. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1, 37–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lv, X., Hou, L., Li, J., & Liu, Z. (2018). Differentiating concepts and instances for knowledge graph embedding. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 1971–1979). Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
  11. Marcus, G. F. (2003). The algebraic mind–integrating connectionism and cognitive science. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Minsky, M., & Papert, S. (1988). Perceptrons. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Smolensky, P. (1988a). On the proper treatment of connectionism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sun, R. (2016). Implicit and explicit processes: Their relation, interaction, and competition. In L. Macchi, M. Bagassi, & R. Viale (Eds.), Cognitive unconscious and human rationality (p. 257). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Tolman, E. C. (1948). Cognitive maps in rats and men. The Psychological Review, 55(4), 189–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Towell, G. G., & Shavlik, J. W. (1994). Knowledge-based artificial neural networks. Artificial Intelligence, 70(1–2), 119–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Tversky, B. (1993). Cognitive maps, cognitive collages, and spatial mental models. In A. Frank & I. Campari (Eds.), Spatial information theory—a theoretical basis for GIS (pp. 14–24). Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Tversky, B. (1992). Distortions in cognitive maps. Geoforum, 23(2), 131–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Tversky, B. (2019). Mind in motion. New York, USA: Basic Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Venn, J. (1880). On the diagrammatic and mechanical representation of propositions and reasonings. The London, Edinburgh and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 10(58), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. von Rüden, L., Mayer, S., Garcke, J., Bauckhage, C., & Schücker, J. (2019). Informed machine learning-towards a taxonomy of explicit integration of knowledge into machine learning. CoRR arXiv:abs/1903.12394.
  22. Whitehead, A. N. (1929). Process and reality. Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ML2R Competence Center for Machine Learning Rhine-Ruhr, MLAI Lab, AI Foundations Group, Bonn-Aachen International Center for Information Technology (b-it)University of BonnBonnGermany

Personalised recommendations