Can We Distinguish Machine Learning from Human Learning?
This work addresses a foundational problem in AI/ML research by seeking to rigorously compare human and machine learning, potentially offering new insights into both fields, though it appears incremental as it builds on existing comparisons without immediate broad impact.
The paper tackles the problem of distinguishing machine learning from human learning by proposing a novel approach that defines tasks where the 'harder to learn' relation is reversed between AI and human intelligence, aiming to find interesting pairs of tasks under human-created rules to understand differences in learning mechanisms.
What makes a task relatively more or less difficult for a machine compared to a human? Much AI/ML research has focused on expanding the range of tasks that machines can do, with a focus on whether machines can beat humans. Allowing for differences in scale, we can seek interesting (anomalous) pairs of tasks T, T'. We define interesting in this way: The "harder to learn" relation is reversed when comparing human intelligence (HI) to AI. While humans seems to be able to understand problems by formulating rules, ML using neural networks does not rely on constructing rules. We discuss a novel approach where the challenge is to "perform well under rules that have been created by human beings." We suggest that this provides a rigorous and precise pathway for understanding the difference between the two kinds of learning. Specifically, we suggest a large and extensible class of learning tasks, formulated as learning under rules. With these tasks, both the AI and HI will be studied with rigor and precision. The immediate goal is to find interesting groundtruth rule pairs. In the long term, the goal will be to understand, in a generalizable way, what distinguishes interesting pairs from ordinary pairs, and to define saliency behind interesting pairs. This may open new ways of thinking about AI, and provide unexpected insights into human learning.