You are free to share this article under the Attribution 4.0 International license. Infants outperform artificial intelligence in detecting what motivates other people's actions, according to a new study. The results, which highlight fundamental differences between cognition and computation, point to shortcomings in today's technologies and where improvements are needed for AI to more fully replicate human behavior. "Adults and even infants can easily make reliable inferences about what drives other people's actions," explains Moira Dillon, an assistant professor in New York University's psychology department and the senior author of the paper in the journal Cognition. "Current AI finds these inferences challenging to make." "The novel idea of putting infants and AI head-to-head on the same tasks is allowing researchers to better describe infants' intuitive knowledge about other people and suggest ways of integrating that knowledge into AI," she adds.

Infants outperform artificial intelligence in detecting what motivates other people's actions, finds a new study by a team of psychology and data science researchers. Its results, which highlight fundamental differences between cognition and computation, point to shortcomings in today's technologies and where improvements are needed for AI to more fully replicate human behavior. "Adults and even infants can easily make reliable inferences about what drives other people's actions," explains Moira Dillon, an assistant professor in New York University's Department of Psychology and the senior author of the paper, which appears in the journal Cognition. "Current AI finds these inferences challenging to make." "The novel idea of putting infants and AI head-to-head on the same tasks is allowing researchers to better describe infants' intuitive knowledge about other people and suggest ways of integrating that knowledge into AI," she adds. "If AI aims to build flexible, commonsense thinkers like human adults become, then machines should draw upon the same core abilities infants possess in detecting goals and preferences," says Brenden Lake, an assistant professor in NYU's Center for Data Science and Department of Psychology and one of the paper's authors.

Infants outperform artificial intelligence in detecting what motivates other people's actions, finds a new study by a team of psychology and data science researchers. Its results, which highlight fundamental differences between cognition and computation, point to shortcomings in today's technologies and where improvements are needed for AI to more fully replicate human behavior. "Adults and even infants can easily make reliable inferences about what drives other people's actions," explains Moira Dillon, an assistant professor in New York University's Department of Psychology and the senior author of the paper, which appears in the journal Cognition. "Current AI finds these inferences challenging to make." "The novel idea of putting infants and AI head-to-head on the same tasks is allowing researchers to better describe infants' intuitive knowledge about other people and suggest ways of integrating that knowledge into AI," she adds. "If AI aims to build flexible, commonsense thinkers like human adults become, then machines should draw upon the same core abilities infants possess in detecting goals and preferences," says Brenden Lake, an assistant professor in NYU's Center for Data Science and Department of Psychology and one of the paper's authors.

The central challenge in commonsense knowledge representation research is to develop content theories that achieve a high degree of both competency and coverage. We describe a new methodology for constructing formal theories in commonsense knowledge domains that complements traditional knowledge representation approaches by first addressing issues of coverage. We show how a close examination of a very general task (strategic planning) leads to a catalog of the concepts and facts that must be encoded for general commonsense reasoning. These concepts are sorted into a manageable number of coherent domains, one of which is the representational area of commonsense human memory. We then elaborate on these concepts using textual corpus-analysis techniques, where the conceptual distinctions made in natural language are used to improve the definitions of the concepts that should be expressible in our formal theories.

We present a new set of challenge problems for the logical formalization of commonsense knowledge, called Triangle-COPA. This set of one hundred problems is smaller than other recent commonsense reasoning question sets, but is unique in that it is specifically designed to support the development of logic-based commonsense theories, via two means. First, questions and potential answers are encoded in logical form using a fixed vocabulary of predicates, eliminating the need for sophisticated natural language processing pipelines. Second, the domain of the questions is tightly constrained so as to focus formalization efforts on one area of inference, namely the commonsense reasoning that people do about human psychology. We describe the authoring methodology used to create this problem set, and our analysis of the scope of requisite commonsense knowledge. We then show an example of how problems can be solved using an implementation of weighted abduction.

The central challenge in commonsense knowledge representation research is to develop content theories that achieve a high degree of both competency and coverage. We describe a new methodology for constructing formal theories in commonsense knowledge domains that complements traditional knowledge representation approaches by first addressing issues of coverage. These concepts are sorted into a manageable number of coherent domains, one of which is the representational area of commonsense human memory. These representational areas are then analyzed using more traditional knowledge representation techniques, as demonstrated in this article by our treatment of commonsense human memory.

(Niles and Pease 2001). Considering that tremendous scheduling that are robust in the face of realworld progress has been made in commonsense reasoning concerns like time zones, daylight savings in specialized topics such as thermodynamics time, and international calendar variations. in physical systems (Collins and Forbus 1989), it is surprising that our best content theories Given the importance of an ontology of of people are still struggling to get past time across so many different commonsense simple notions of belief and intentionality (van der Hoek and Wooldridge 2003). However, search is the generation of competency theories systems that can successfully reason about that have a degree of depth necessary to solve people are likely to be substantially more valuable inferential problems that people are easily able than those that reason about thermodynamics to handle. in most future applications. Yet competency in content theories is only Content theories for reasoning about people half of the challenge. Commonsense reasoning are best characterized collectively as a theory of in AI theories will require that computers not commonsense psychology, in contrast to those only make deep humanlike inferences but also that are associated with commonsense (naïve) ensure that the scope of these inferences is as physics. The scope of commonsense physics, broad as humans can handle, as well. That is, best outlined in Patrick Hayes's first and second in addition to competency, content theories will "Naïve Physics Manifestos" (Hayes 1979, need adequate coverage over the full breadth of 1984), includes content theories of time, space, concepts that are manipulated in human-level physical entities, and their dynamics. It is only by achieving psychology, in contrast, concerns all some adequate level of coverage that we of the aspects of the way that people think they can begin to construct reasoning systems that think. It should include notions of plans and integrate fully into real-world AI applications, goals, opportunities and threats, decisions and where pragmatic considerations and expressive preferences, emotions and memories, along user interfaces raise the bar significantly.