From software engineer Brendan Dixon at Evolution News & Views:
AI theorists consider what they call Artificial Generalized Intelligence (or AGI) the ultimate goal: The intelligence of an AGI would match or beat — if you believe Musk, Kurzweil, and the other true believers — human intelligence. For these theorists, AI’s recent successes, including Google’s DeepMind, IBM’s Watson, and Tesla’s self-driving cars, are no more than steps toward that end. Like all goals, however, the pursuit of AGI rests not just on a desire to see what we can accomplish, but on beliefs about what is.
The misguided goals, the bad aim, of so much AI (though not all) arises from dismissing human uniqueness. Such AI becomes, not a tool to assist humans, but one to replace them. Whether it replaces uniquely human abilities, such as making moral judgments, or squeezes humans out altogether, as some robotics proposals tend to assume, someone will get hurt. Re-aiming AI toward “Assisted Intelligence,” rather than replacement-directed “Artificial Intelligence,” would bring more benefit and remove the scariest scenarios. Our tools do not cause our problems; it is how we use them. More.
On the other hand, computers created us, right?
See also: Data basic
Follow UD News at Twitter!
3 Replies to “Assisted intelligence vs. artificial intelligence”
as to this excerpt from the article:
Methinks the demise of the uniqueness of human intelligence is greatly exaggerated. The fallacious belief that human intelligence is nothing but massive amounts of computational ability has been with us since Alan Turing invented computers.
Ironically, Alan Turing, in his demonstration that Godel’s incompleteness theorem applied to computers as well as to mathematics, i.e. the infamous ‘halting problem’, was himself instrumental in directly falsifying the belief that human intelligence could ever be programmed into computers. You can pick that bit of history up in the later part of the following video:
As to the implications of his incompleteness theorem as it is applied to computers, Godel himself stated this:
Here are a few quotes backing up Godel’s claim,
As well, in all the hype surrounding AI, people tend to forget one crucial weakness regarding AI programs. Specifically, all the AI programs, that people get so excited about, all do just one specific task extremely well. One specific task that they were painstakingly programmed, i.e. intelligently designed, to do extremely well. People tend to overlook the crucial weakness in AI that these programs are perfectly worthless on any other tasks that they were not programmed to do.
As mentioned in the preceding article, besides AI programs being limited to just one task, AI also has another severe limitation in its ability to understand human language.
That computers have no real comprehension of human language is made clear by ‘Google translate’:
Since a computer has no free will in order to create new information, nor conscious awareness so as to be able take overall context of language into consideration, then one simple way of defeating the Turing test would simply be to tell, or invent, a new joke:,,,
In the following article, which was written in response to Tom Wolfe’s recent book exposing the fact that Darwinists have no real clue how human language possibly could have ‘evolved’, neurosurgeon Dr. Michael Egnor points out that there is an irreducible element to human language that will forever be beyond materialistic explanation, (and thus, by default, the ability to actually understand human language will forever be beyond our capacity to program into computers),,,.
Moreover, speech, or more particularly, our ability to infuse information into material substrates, is what has given us the ability to become ‘masters of the planet’. I might add, to become ‘masters of the planet’ in spite of the fact that, on a Darwinian view of things, we are a ‘sad case’ as far as ‘survival of the fittest’ is concerned:
Also of related interest, from quantum mechanics we find that physical reality ultimately reduces to a ‘information theoretic’ basis. As well, over the past six decades since the discovery of DNA, we also find that life itself is ultimately ‘information theoretic’ in its foundational basis.
It is hard to imagine a more convincing proof that we are made ‘in the image of God’, than finding both the universe and life itself are ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis, and that we, of all the creatures on earth, uniquely possess an ability to understand and create information, and have even come to ‘master the planet’ precisely because of our unique ability infuse information into material substrates.
Verses and Music:
Of humorous supplemental note: Artificial Intelligence debunked in one short paragraph:
Here is another article from Michael Egnor which goes well with the preceding: