When I was a Christian, I vehemently rejected the idea that artificial life (AI) could exist — I believed consciousness was a result of an immaterial soul (which, of course, conveniently cannot be tested).
Now I know better. I just starting reading Kurzwiel’s The Age of Spiritual Machines, and now it seems inevitable that by the end of the century we will create at least some kind of simple AI.
What do you think? Is true AI possible?
[polldaddy poll=1003091]
3,200 subscribers. 10,000 daily views.
Debbie: It must be such a rewarding life making others’ lives... Catholic Church Spends $550,000 to Repeal Gay Marriage Law in Maine Debbie: This world is too full of hate and that saddens me. Live and let live. Abortion is nobody’s... Thoughts from an Abortion Doctor
John C: Anti-no, “I” dont have any credibility either but the difference is that “I”m not... Leviticus Also Said…
Custador: “Matt and Mark record “My God, My God, Why hast Thou forsaken me?”; John, “It is finished”; and Luke,... Leviticus Also Said…
Daniel Florien: When you have indigestion when you’re reading it, you know it’s true! I’ll Let No Flimsy Fairy Tale Push Me
Mary Lynne: Hmm – I wonder what a “true fairy tale” would be. Is that like jumbo... I’ll Let No Flimsy Fairy Tale Push Me
Antiutopia: John C — Christ himself doesn’t have any credibility with these ignorant morons — do you... Leviticus Also Said…
Uzza: Cool story. It reminds me of Confucius, meeting the mad hermit of Chu, who told him it was... I’ll Let No Flimsy Fairy Tale Push Me
|
|
|
41 Comments
IMHO, AI is very likely and I think we’ll see it in our lifetime. But that isn’t necessarily a good thing. If it has any sense of self preservation, and it watches mainstream TV, we’re fucked..
We already have all sorts of artificial intelligence: CAPTCHA breakers, chess programs, robots that learn to walk or respond to verbal commands, spam filtering software, virus scanners, image recognition software…
Hell, ELIZA was written in 1966! So, what’s your criteria for calling something AI?
I’d say it would have to act intelligent — be able to learn, solve problems on its own, etc. Not just a glorified slide rule.
Programming responses to me are not AI — that can be done with paper. The “AI” for text robots are incredibly bad. Have you ever had a conversation with one? You know its fake after one answer.
I don’t have a technical definition ready, so I’d guess Turing’s is decent enough. If it can fool people into thinking it’s human, then it’s at least pretty close to AI.
As a theoretician, I see no reason to disagree with the (strong) Church-Turing thesis, which conjectures that if something can be computed (efficiently) in the real world, by a physical process, then it can be computed (efficiently) by a computer program. So anything our brains are doing should also be possible for a computer, at least in principle. On the other hand, AI research is still just a collection of disparate techniques. And computer science as a whole is still very young — probably less than 100 truly fundamental, deep algorithmic techniques are known. We may see some interesting things in our lifetimes, but probably only in the research labs, and still only for very general purposes. I don’t think we’ll see ubiquitous, sci-fi AI all around us.
If the Turing test is your criteria, then it seems we’re awfully close:
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/10/13/1450205
The problem I see with a lot of current AI programs is that they’re not about creating a machine that thinks intelligently, they’re about programming a computer with human-style responses so that it behaves like a human without free will.
I don’t think that’s a path that will create a truly intelligent machine.
As for being afraid of AI… shouldn’t you be afraid of RI too?
@John: I saw that — but have you tried Elbot? Holy crap, if ANYONE mistook that bot for a human, they must have been using retards. It’s hilarious.
If that’s as close as we’ve gotten, we still have a very long way to go. Here’s a sample conversation I just had, and I didn’t even ask any tricky questions:
Bot: Hello. If it were in my power, I would give everyone who visits me a chocolate robot! Unfortunately, no one makes chocolate robots. It’s a great business opportunity!
Me: Have you learned anything about science recently?
Bot: Hmmm… That’s one question I cannot answer with my limited artificial intelligence. How about you?
Me: What about me? What would you like me to answer?
Bot: Well what about humans and finding things out? Where do they stand on this?
Me: Who is this mysterious “they”?
Bot: The question is not ‘who is’, but rather who could it be!
Me: You’re not making any sense at all.
Bot: Human beings have a strange criterion for what is meaningful. If I started to worry about that life would lose all meaning for me.
* * *
In other words, canned response after canned response. I have a hard time believing anyone could really think this was a human.
I’m not sure I agree with Turing’s Test — I’d give a percentage of maybe 75% of people who are of at least average intelligence.
@wazza: I agree with you. That’s a great point, I should have mentioned that.
What do you mean by “RI”?
Real Intelligence… since we’re going calling the other kind Artificial…
Yeah, that does show quite a bit of bias, eh?
Well, perhaps Natural Intelligence is better, to contrast with Artificial Intelligence, intelligence which is the product of artifice…
no sooner had I submitted that than I realised that Natural Intelligence acronymizes to…
“NI!”
@wazza: I just ran into this quote in Kurzweil’s book:
I think it could also be defined as “the attempt by computer scientists to create a program that mimics humans in form, without any of the function — in other words, a type of scarecrow.”
Douglas Hofstadter has me firmly convinced that AI is possible at least in principle. I see no reason to think that our consciousnesses cannot be modeled in their entirety by a sufficiently large and fast computer. Of course, somebody has to figure out how to write the computer program…
I don’t believe strong AI will be possible until we create quantum computers. I am convinced that true consciousness is manifest through quantum processes. There is growing evidence that quantum processes are possible in the hot, chaotic environment of the brain. Kurzweil discusses this possibility in his books (though he isn’t convinced). I believe he cites the work of Roger Penrose involving microtubles.
For some background, try reading this Wikipedia entry, on Quantum Mind:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind
For balance on my opinion, here is an article in Nature that argues AGAINST quantum computation in the brain:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7084/full/440611a.html
————————
Wanted to make some off-topic offerings regarding your blog in general. This is the first time I’ve been here, so I’m going to make an assumption based on link titles I see here. I will do some more reading so that I understand your perspective better.
The assumption is that you’ve gone from the Christian idea of a dualistic God to strict materialism. There are plenty of other perspectives worth considering.
I’ve been through tremendous changes in my own beliefs lately. Some of that is reflected in my blog when I still felt a need to broadcast my beliefs. (My perspective has evolved past those beliefs, though I don’t think there is anything inherently “wrong” with them — or other people’s beliefs for that matter). I haven’t updated my blog recently, but maybe it’s about time — if nothing else to keep a record of my own experience!
I know another person who made a transformation from being an evangelical Christian, but ended up anywhere but strict materialism. I’m an engineer and scientist (not to mention a former Catholic), and took a completely different path. Interestingly, we’ve ended up at the same place. (In retrospect, we really haven’t gone anywhere, but I don’t want to complicate things…)
We all find ourselves boxed into a set of beliefs and ideologies throughout our lives. For many people, this “box” can change dramatically throughout the course of their lives. The fact that there are no constants across an individual life or lives or societies speaks volumes about the nature of our existence. Strict materialism is simply another box. It gives you something seemingly solid on which to base your existence. It’s fundamentally no different than basing your existence on faith. Neither one is inherently right or wrong — but just another aspect of our experience.
@Johnny: My starting point is naturalism. If there is evidence for more, I’m always open to it.
Daniel — fair enough. Is it evidence you’re looking for, or proof? By definition, proof can never go beyond current scientific beliefs. Evidence, on the other hand, comes in the form of phenomena we can not explain with our current theories (or contradicts them). But what is proof, precisely? If proof involves being able to predict the outcome of each every event, then science has already failed, since quantum events can only be predicted with probability.
“Strict materialism is simply another box.”
It has the advantage of making testable assertions and models which allow reliable prediction, which faith utterly lacks.
It’s no more a ‘box’ than reality is a ‘box’.
@ty
I agree. No more — and no less.
@Johnny: Evidence.
“The fact that there are no constants across an individual life or lives or societies speaks volumes about the nature of our existence.”
There are a shitload of constants across all of those things. Pain, suffering, joy, language, pi, e, the speed of light, death, art, illness, health, relationships, gravity…
I’m not sure how you reached the conclusion that there’s no constants.
Well, you’ll have to draw your own conclusions, but here’s some material to get you thinking.
Stuff from respected scientists/philosophers:
Hawking rewrites history… backwards
(story on a paper by theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking and Thomas Hertog)
http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=2617
Are You Living In a Computer Simulation?
A paper by Nick Bostrom (Oxford Professor of Philosophy)
http://www.simulation-argument.com/
A Cybernetic Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
Ross Rhodes (OK, I don’t really know anything about this guy’s credentials, but his arguements are compelling)
http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/argument/Argument4.html
“The Fabric of Reality — The Science of Parallel Universes and Its Implications”
A book by David Deutch, considered the “father of the quantum computer.”
Of course, since you’ve read “Age of Spiritual Machines”, don’t forget “The Singularity is Near.”
‘Science-ish’ books (dipping into the metaphysical, and nothing proven through experimentation, but gets you thinking outside the box):
“The Holographic Universe” — Michael Talbot
“The God Theory” — Bernard Heisch
“Science and the Akashic Field” — Edwin Lazlo
“God is Not Dead – What Quantum Physics Tells Us About Our Origins and How We Should Live Our Lives” — Amit Gotswani
Totally unscientific, but interesting exploration:
“The Book – On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are” — Alan Watts
“This Is It – The Nature of Oneness” — Jan Kersschot
Fiction:
“God’s Debris” — Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert. Available online)
“Accelerando” — Charles Stross (post-singularity. Available online)
“Sphere” — Michael Crichton
“There are a shitload of constants across all of those things. Pain, suffering, joy, language, pi, e, the speed of light, death, art, illness, health, relationships, gravity…
I’m not sure how you reached the conclusion that there’s no constants.”
I’m pretty sure I won’t convince you of anything, but you deserve a response…
Pain, suffering, joy — Yes, it’s true that we feel these things, but so much depends on context and perspective. Two people can have exactly the same experience, and yet one can suffer while the other feels joy. Or, you may feel nothing at all.
Language — How many times have there been misunderstandings because somebody said one thing, and someone else interpreted it as meaning something completely different? How can one set of facts be spun in so many different ways, depending on the language used? (i.e. look at the current U.S. presidential debates as an example).
pi,e, speed of light, gravity — OK — well if you believe any of the theoretical physicists that propose multiple, or infinite universes besides our own, then our so-called “constants” may only apply in this universe. You, like many physicists, may choose not to believe this. It hasn’t yet been testable, but there have been some recent developments that may change this soon. For example, read this article on the recently discovered “Dark Flow” discovered in space whose movement may be explainable only by considering effects outside the observable universe:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080923-dark-flows.html
In my last posting, I also referred to the book by David Deutsch, “The Fabric of Reality — The Science of Parallel Universes.” Even within our own universe, some constants may not even be constant. Specifically with the speed of light, you might want to read this article: “Speed of light may have changed recently” http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092.html
Death — Well, just because that’s been a pretty certain thing in the past doesn’t mean it will be in the future. Ray Kurzweil has been fighting death for years! Have you read any of his stuff? Also, will you be able to download your brain into a computer and preserve your consciousness? That’s a debate for science as well as philosophy. Kurzweil brings that up as well.
art — Well, maybe all cultures have art, but, once again, the interpretation of that art (or whether it should even be considered art) is relative to the observer.
illness/health — Certainly we experience these things too — but, like suffering and joy, these are sometimes context dependent. Our definitions of what is an illness have changed over the years. Many people used to think homosexuality was a mental disorder. How about this one: “The Truth About Autism: Scientists Reconsider What They Think They Know”
http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/magazine/16-03/ff_autism
How about people who gained extraordinary abilities after brain injuries? Or savants and our judgements about them? How about all the people who have suffered injuries, only to have gone on to have happy, extraordinary lives because of the new perspective it gave them?
relationships — Have you ever known a relationship in human history that’s been a constant?
OK — now I’m going to get philosophical on you…
Ever read this one?:
————————————
“How fortunate you are; now you are wealthy” said a Chinese farmer’s friends after a strong young horse wandered into his farm. Having a horse made all the difference between being a poor farmer and a wealthy farmer; the horse allowed one to till more land, to grow more food than the family could consume, enough to take to market.
“Perhaps!” was the wise farmer’s reply, much to the puzzlement of friends.
Next day, as the farmer’s son was working to train the horse, he was thrown so hard he broke his leg. “How unfortunate you are; your horse is no good and now even your son cannot help with the crops.”
“Perhaps!” was the wise farmer’s reply, again to the puzzlement of friends.
Next day the army came through the village, conscripting all the healthy young men, taking them off to war. “How fortunate you are; your son’s broken leg kept him from being conscripted…”
“Perhaps!” was the wise farmer’s reply, again to the puzzlement of friends…
—————————————–
Quite often, the only meaning that events or situations carry are the ones we give them…
Johnny, I’d agree that the only meaning events have is what we give them… but I don’t see how it supports your point.
Also, you seem to be reaching trying to disprove some of the constants brought up. Other universes might have different constants, but there’s no proof for other universes, so those physical constants are constant as far as we can see.
The solipsistic argument is useless. Look at it this way. If there’s no evidence that the world is a simulation, it can either be real, or an incredibly good simulation. If it’s a simulation so good no test can tell the difference, ever, how can it possibly have an effect on our lives either way?
You scorn materialism as “just another box”. But materialism isn’t a belief system, unlike what you seem to have adopted. It’s just a tool for testing the world. You put in observations, and what comes out is the closest you can get at that time to a view of the world around you.
If and when evidence comes up that the world is not real, that we are all just God’s Debris* or dreams in the mind of the creator, then materialism will lead those of us who use it to that conclusion and we will be at the forefront of figuring out the new limits on our existence. Because materialists don’t make something up and call it truth; they look at the world around them, see what it’s like, and call it truth for now.
*Yes, I’ve read that book. Most of the science in it is bunk, but it’s fairly well written and a good story. I’ll definitely read the Religion Wars when I can get my hands on a copy.
When computers get smart enough to construct themselves , lookout!
they already can, in theory. It’s just that there’s no drive to do so. That drive will be part of true AI.
@ wazza
I don’t know that you can call materialism nothing more than a tool.
dictionary.com gave me this:
1. preoccupation with or emphasis on material objects, comforts, and considerations, with a disinterest in or rejection of spiritual, intellectual, or cultural values.
2. the philosophical theory that regards matter and its motions as constituting the universe, and all phenomena, including those of mind, as due to material agencies.
Either directly opposed to certain ideologies (which puts it awfully close to an ideology itself) or a philosophical theory.
Do you think it is impossible to behave rationally without being a materialist?
the second definition is the one I’m referring to here. Material Universe, not Material Girl.
And of course, as a philosophical theory, it’s a tool, just the same as Consequentialism, Feminism, Marxism, Postmodernism (the complicated, impossible-to-decipher and more or less useless thingamajig that your father picked up during his wandering years in the 60s of philosophical tools) and all the other isms. It just happens to be the ism that powers science, and therefore the most useful philosophical tool.
As for being rationalist without being materialist… how would you define rationality? To me, one of the most important parts of being rational is working from the evidence you have… which is basically materialism. If you’re just going to make things up and insist they have real substance (like God), rather than making things up as a way of inspecting the relationship between things (as we do in thought experiments), you’re not being rational anymore. At least, not by my definition.
@wazza
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
“Johnny, I’d agree that the only meaning events have is what we give them… but I don’t see how it supports your point.”
Hmmm. OK. Might have been a stretch. I guess I was just saying that sometimes what seems like a constant is not really a constant — it only seems that way relative to our perspective, because of a certain meaning we or society assigns.
“Also, you seem to be reaching trying to disprove some of the constants brought up. Other universes might have different constants, but there’s no proof for other universes, so those physical constants are constant as far as we can see.”
Well, I had to try, didn’t I? :-) I’m not saying there’s proof here. But there is a lot of compelling evidence that it is possible — enough that we should keep looking to determine one way or another.
“The solipsistic argument is useless. Look at it this way. If there’s no evidence that the world is a simulation, it can either be real, or an incredibly good simulation. If it’s a simulation so good no test can tell the difference, ever, how can it possibly have an effect on our lives either way?”
I’m not sure solipsism is the right term here (the theory that I’m the only real consciousness, and the rest of you are just an illusion). I DO think that separateness is an illusion — but not in that way, and anyway, is going off topic… I do agree that the actual implementation of our universe may not make much difference to us — unless of course, we can learn to go beyond it. (Consider “The Matrix” as an example).
“You scorn materialism as “just another box”. But materialism isn’t a belief system, unlike what you seem to have adopted. It’s just a tool for testing the world. You put in observations, and what comes out is the closest you can get at that time to a view of the world around you.”
I didn’t mean to scorn materialism or anything else. I apologize if I came across that way. I just like trying to get people to think outside the box, and maybe get too pushy sometimes. I won’t deny having a system of beliefs — that’s a hard one to avoid — but I do try to remain aware of that fact and not let it prevent me from keeping an open mind. I’m perfectly happy redefining my “box” as it becomes appropriate to do so.
“If and when evidence comes up that the world is not real, that we are all just God’s Debris* or dreams in the mind of the creator, then materialism will lead those of us who use it to that conclusion and we will be at the forefront of figuring out the new limits on our existence. Because materialists don’t make something up and call it truth; they look at the world around them, see what it’s like, and call it truth for now.”
Fair enough. I certainly haven’t dismissed the idea that science/materialism can lead us to know everything there is to be known. I personally feel there are other tools at our disposal — but I understand that these tend to get very subjective.
“*Yes, I’ve read that book. Most of the science in it is bunk, but it’s fairly well written and a good story. I’ll definitely read the Religion Wars when I can get my hands on a copy.”
Cool — yeah, the science is mostly bunk — some of that is apparently intentional. I’m still not exactly sure what Adams’ point was in saying that there were ‘logical inconsistencies’ in the story — ‘can you find them?’ I’m guessing — and I could be wrong — that he wanted to say something about his own beliefs without being able to be pinned to them. Sort of a built-in escape clause.
I don’t see how there can be other tools at our disposal. If the tools are observational, they come under the rubric of materialism, and if they’re not, they’re like a spanner without a head – good only for beating other people over the head with.
This is the problem I typically have with materialism. If you believe that nothing can be verified except through empirical evidence, then sure, materialism is the way to go. Unfortunately, this rapidly becomes circular.
Empirical evidence is the only rational criterion for understanding the world because… it is not rational to believe what we have no empirical evidence for.
Maybe I’m wrong, and that isn’t circular. I would appreciate being shown how, since I can’t seem to figure it out.
So if you think materialism is the only rational criterion for understanding the world, that’s cool by me. The only problem I have with it is that all too often people do not acknowledge the precarious logical leap that it takes.
Well, jonboy, what else is there?
When you build a house, you make it out of bricks or wood – real things. You build them on real foundations. You don’t build it in midair, because only other real things will support them. Is it then illogical to say that the only thing that can support real things is other real things?
We live in a world made of material things. Everything we can observe has an effect on other things. Moreover, if they don’t have an effect, they might as well not exist, because for all intents and purposes they don’t.
Moreover, what non-material things would you include in a rational system? Is there any logical reason for believing they exist at all?
@jonboy: Empirical evidence (combined with other valid forms of evidence, including historical and philosophical) is rational because it is all we can know.
What other forms of evidence do you propose that are rational?
I’d like to propose the following question:
Is it ever possible to prove that there is something we can’t and won’t ever explain through science? If so, what would be the criteria that frame that proof? If not, explain your reasoning.
@Johnny: Science is the most reliable method we know of for discovering truth. If you have a better system that can be shown to be just as reliable, or even more so, I think everyone would be open to it.
Daniel — No. I don’t have anything that’s more reliable — and I’m not trying to discredit science. However, if there is something else out there that can get us to the truth any faster, more reliably, or more completely — or at least supplement science to achieve such a result, then I think we’d both like to know about it. We won’t, however, find such a thing, should it exist, if we aren’t looking for it — which is why I always encourage thinking outside the box, even if doesn’t always fit most people’s definition of rationality. I’ve seen lots of people fail miserbly in doing so, but I do admire them for trying.
Science works because it engages directly with the truth. Any other method would have to do so too.
Several reactions to the original post:
First, we already have “simple” AIs. Several of these have been mentioned already, and they do learn, solve problems on their own, etc. They may not conform to YOUR definition of intelligence but based on some of your other comments here I’m going to go out on a limb and say that you’re not an expert on defining intelligence or AI research ;)
Defining intelligence is nearly impossible. You said earlier that you don’t have a technical definition handy, but if you were to look for one you would find that a good one doesn’t really exist. Intelligence has a certain quality which is difficult to name, but which is recognizable when present. One of the biggest problems in attempting to define intelligence is that any time we name something that we think is intelligent, someone will present an example of a system that does exactly that but which doesn’t match our idea of what intelligence is despite meeting our requirements. I could give you examples of programs which are fully capable of learning and solving problems and you would still (probably) not call them intelligent. So we have kind of a moving goalpost situation, just like creationists do with evolution – every time evidence is presented they change the requirements.
You said that it should “not just [be] a glorified slide rule”, but that in itself is problematic because there are some very good arguments in favor of the human brain being nothing but a glorified slide rule itself. Human thought and consciousness can be modeled (albeit crudely) as a system that does nothing but shuffle symbols around based on simple rules. (See Godel, Escher, Bach by Hofstadter – a book that you really should read if you’re going to have discussions about AI.)
Same thing with “programmed responses”. A common argument against AI is that a computer can never actually be creative – it can only do what it was programmed to do. But if you believe that our brains are just complicated blobs of physical matter, with nothing supernatural (or quantum) happening inside of them, then we ourselves are just machines doing what we were programmed to do.
Finally, why should fooling a person into thinking it’s a human be the standard for AI? None of us would argue that a wolf (or almost any animal) lacks intelligence, but no-one would ever confuse a wolf for a human. Intelligence can apply to any problem, and in my opinion our efforts toward AI should not be to create a machine that can chat about the weather in a convincingly human manner. There are better (though perhaps less pleasing to the masses) things we could be doing with our time.
Finally, my own opinion is that for intelligence to exist, it must evolve itself and it must have a “body” to live inside of. Whether the body exists only in a simulation or whether we make a robotic body that inhabits the physical world, having a sense of self (more or less by definition) requires some separateness from the environment, and an ability to perceive the environment and act within it. I guess you could argue that any program has the OS as its environment and its own memory space as its “body” but I think that would be stretching things considerably.
Dan — Great observations!
“Defining intelligence is nearly impossible. You said earlier that you don’t have a technical definition handy, but if you were to look for one you would find that a good one doesn’t really exist. Intelligence has a certain quality which is difficult to name, but which is recognizable when present.”
I find this statement curious indeed. Surely, we must be able to define it and measure it somehow. Isn’t that what our scientific tools are supposed to do for us?
“But if you believe that our brains are just complicated blobs of physical matter, with nothing supernatural (or quantum) happening inside of them, then we ourselves are just machines doing what we were programmed to do.”
Even if you believe that there are quantum processes going on, you can still make the same point. It’s only a matter of time before we design AI’s based on quantum computing.
“Finally, why should fooling a person into thinking it’s a human be the standard for AI? None of us would argue that a wolf (or almost any animal) lacks intelligence”
You’re right — I don’t think anyone would argue with this. We simply use human intelligence as a reference point, because that’s what we can relate to. Our efforts to create intelligence will (at least initially) likely be directed toward emulating human intelligence and measured against the same, because that is our most familiar measuring stick.
“Finally, my own opinion is that for intelligence to exist, it must evolve itself and it must have a “body” to live inside of. Whether the body exists only in a simulation or whether we make a robotic body that inhabits the physical world, having a sense of self (more or less by definition) requires some separateness from the environment”
That, my friend, is very astute. (OK, I’m not really your friend, but if McCain can say it all the time, can’t I? :-) I agree with you wholeheartedly.
“I guess you could argue that any program has the OS as its environment and its own memory space as its “body” but I think that would be stretching things considerably.”
Not really a stretch at all, IMO. Memory seems to be the key element in creating a sense of separateness. Just imagine for a minute what your experience would be like if you had none. I’d go a step further and say that ANY process, natural or manmade (of which a program is one example) involves an element of memory and intelligence.
Perhaps the reason we have a hard time creating an absolute definition of intelligence is because there really is none. If all processes do contain a measure of intelligence, then intelligence is not an threshold to be crossed, but a continuum that encompases everything we observe.
Creativity isn’t just bringing the same responses up… they have to be recombined into something the entity doing the creating hasn’t seen before, which is something you can’t do with a slide rule.
The most important thing an AI computer could do would be to be able to break anything down to its most basic concepts, then reassemble them, with whatever differences it wanted. Moreover, it has to know the difference, which requires a sense of self, which is one thing we don’t know how to program into computers.
I suspect consciousness is an epiphenomenon of neural networks, and eventually we will design a neural network that has the consciousness of a dog, then of a chimpanzee, then of a human, etc.
In a way, I do welcome our robot overlords. I suspect that robots – not having emotions and superstitions – have potential to be more moral than humans do. It is time for the human race to be self-modified or simply replaced by a better species.
Not that humans are bad… it’s just that we’re ancient technology. The world is being run on old Mac II computers. Sentient beings can do better.