It is an interesting debate, though I think it's being shone in the wrong light.
According to the article, it almost sounds like Chomsky believes a statistical approach to AI is a disservice to the field. The point he's missing is that research in statistical based AI is just that - statistics research.
Chomsky and Norvig deal in two different fields, which happen to have similar applications. Norvig does research in statistical and machine based learning. Success in this field comes from a new model that can make more accurate predictions, or a proof that it is impossible to make valid predictions about X with only Y as input. Applications of this field include technologies which rival AI systems as envisioned by Chomsky, but the essential point is that this field focuses on statistics research, not AI research.
Chomsky is wrong in dismissing this as a disservice. I do agree with his main point, that AI research and knowledge is not necessarily furthered by statistics research, but that is simply because they are different beasts entirely.
Maybe one day, when the biology has caught up with us and we have a solid understanding of the brain, will we be able to create a highly intelligent computer. Until then, statistics research is most likely to yield fruitful results.
Chomsky sees a threat to a politics-based academic hegemony, so he responds politically. If he hadn't made so many broadly quantified claims (i.e. had stuck to syntax as Norvig sticks to AI and machine learning) then those claims would not be in such jeopardy from other fields. Chomsky has always been a top-class warrior and this is more of the same.
According to the article, it almost sounds like Chomsky believes a statistical approach to AI is a disservice to the field. The point he's missing is that research in statistical based AI is just that - statistics research.
Chomsky and Norvig deal in two different fields, which happen to have similar applications. Norvig does research in statistical and machine based learning. Success in this field comes from a new model that can make more accurate predictions, or a proof that it is impossible to make valid predictions about X with only Y as input. Applications of this field include technologies which rival AI systems as envisioned by Chomsky, but the essential point is that this field focuses on statistics research, not AI research.
Chomsky is wrong in dismissing this as a disservice. I do agree with his main point, that AI research and knowledge is not necessarily furthered by statistics research, but that is simply because they are different beasts entirely.
Maybe one day, when the biology has caught up with us and we have a solid understanding of the brain, will we be able to create a highly intelligent computer. Until then, statistics research is most likely to yield fruitful results.