OK, so I did some digging and I’d like your feedback 😊                     

Great! Let’s have it!😊

So, I looked up the idea of “laws of thought” and whether we can put them in a computer

First issue: if we find laws of thought, what kind of laws are these?

What do you mean? 🤔

Are they laws like traffic regulations, laws you should follow, but sometimes don’t?

Or are they laws like the laws of nature, which you follow whether or not you want to?

Oh, I see. I remember something about prescriptive and descriptive laws …

Exactly! That’s it. So do the laws of thought tell us something about how the brain is wired,

how we should think if we want to think the right way, or are these ideal laws

Ideal laws? 🤨

Not sure what the right expression is here: these would be descriptive laws, but not like natural laws 🤔

Oh, you mean like math and logic, and so on

Yes, we don’t discover them by generalizing from facts, but they are formal, ideal

OK, so now we have different types of laws. We can explain that to the reader, but then what?

Well, there’s a bunch of psychologist, philosophers, and engineers that argued back and forth on this

and it seems to matter a lot to whether and how we can put them into a machine.

Right, so can we just build a copy of the brain and then it will automatically follow the same laws, or not?

That is indeed the type of question! But there is more! 😊                

Hi John, I’m back! 😊                                                                         

Ok, great! What did you find out?😊

On the lowest levels where data comes in and is processed, the material implementation does matter a lot and very directly

but on higher levels of abstraction, it matters less, except in a general sense, constraining processing speed and memory size

And what is your conclusion about what to include in the article then?

I think I agree with you that we don’t need to go back all the way to the mythological era

But?

well, I suppose it does make sense to include something about the history of psychology

Aha, and why would that be? 

Both Cho and Sam mentioned “the rules of thinking” and “the laws of thought”, isn’t that what we should be looking at?

Maybe, but the article is about AI, not human psychology …

And yet human intelligence is the only intelligence we really know, more or less

So where do we get the “intelligence” part from, if not ourselves?

Hmmm, I see what you mean. So then we need a section on how we discovered our own laws of thought and then put them in a machine?

Exactly! That was what I was getting at! 😅                                  

OK, I do think that makes sense. Then we can’t just talk about computer technology since the 1950s, I guess

No indeed, we should go back at least to the 19th century       

Works for me! But we still have a word limit to observe, so we should be quite selective

I’ll get right on that, no problem! 😉                                              

Thank you so much for your help! 😊