I came across this in-depth interview with Noam Chomsky and Yarden Katz. The conversation covers a number of interesting topics, but specifically Chomsky is asked about the state of Artificial Intelligence. Chomsky argues that AI has over-reliant on what amounts to statistical tricks, rather than striving to find a more fundamental ways to structure intelligence.
On of Chomsky’s comments on science really struck me:
There’s something to that. If you take a look at the progress of science, the sciences are kind of a continuum, but they’re broken up into fields. The greatest progress is in the sciences that study the simplest systems. So take, say physics — greatest progress there. But one of the reasons is that the physicists have an advantage that no other branch of sciences has. If something gets too complicated, they hand it to someone else.
If a molecule is too big, you give it to the chemists. The chemists, for them, if the molecule is too big or the system gets too big, you give it to the biologists. And if it gets too big for them, they give it to the psychologists, and finally it ends up in the hands of the literary critic, and so on.
I wonder where computer science and information theory fit in this continuum.