A recent news item suggests that AI may help bring fusion power to the table on the long used but challenging Tokamak toroidal reactor architecture. This would be a major positive use of AI technology, if it proves sufficiently reliable: Artificial intelligence (AI), a branch of computer science that is transforming scientific inquiry and industry, […]
Many biologists claimed to have written code to simulate evolution. But the popularization of the No Free Lunch theorems showed that the computer programmer must infuse guiding information into the evolutionary program to make it work. To explain the diversity of creativity, an evolution process must be directed.
Holloway: Intelligence, like randomness, is mathematically undefinable.
He recognizes that present AI displays the creativity of its creators and not that of a machine-based intelligence but why let that get in the way of a promising theory?.
Bartlett: Rather than lacking insight into AI issues, this band of theologians is especially sagacious in applying theology to them.
It’s almost as if we’re missing something
If the AI boosters really knew how the human brain functions, they’d be getting the Nobel for Medicine instead of some geek prize.
A computer is not—in and of itself—smarter than a pile of tinkertoys, philosopher Ed Feser argues
This summer, AI will be put through virtual mazes designed to test the intelligence of lab animals.
Including irrelevance. “Although the Statement nowhere distinguishes between “weak” and “strong” AI, the signers are clearly (and rightly) skeptical that computers can become conscious moral agents.”
No. Algorithms—including the ones used by Netflix—can’t be creative.
That’s what George Gilder says. And he thinks it won’t work.
Just the sheer hype from the AI rules! proponents alone should warn us to listen to a different perspective.
One outcome of Simpson’s Paradox is that machines cannot replace statisticians in analysing results. A great deal depends on interpretation, as Marks shows. “Clustering remains largely an art.”
There is a huge media pundit industry anxious to persuade us that machines will come to think like people when the actual concern should be quite the opposite… people will come to think like machines and won’t see through their pretensions. See, for example, A Short Argument Against the Materialist Account of the Mind.