TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Artificial Intelligence will supersede Human intelligence

Anna Hoffmann said in http://www.ted.com/conversations/1321/what_are_10_things_you_know_to.html
"But Christophe, I am not sure that all human intelligence can be described with algorithms, for example emotional intelligence (as Lee mentions), empathy, the kind of creative genius that creates mind blowing art....
...and if the computers are created by humans, maybe they will be kind of human as well? Or the distinction might become more unclear, what is man and what is machine...."
So this is about the subject

I myself defend the thesis.

Share:

Closing Statement from Christophe Cop

How can consciousness arise from algorithms seems to be the main hurdle...
And emotions, and creativity, and sexuality,...

There are thoughts in different directions trying to see how this might (in principle) be done, and what some problems are.

I would conclude that AI can supersede HI, but it seems we don't seem to know how...
How long it will take is difficult to predict, but somewhere between 2 and 100 years would be broad boundaries.

A good many questions have been raised. I guess laymen and researchers might find this debate useful

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Mar 26 2011: In what sense do you think AI will supercede human intelligence ?
    For example, emotional intelligence, while relevant for interactions between humans, would be pointless when it comes to AI.
    So what specifically do you think AI will eventually be better in than human intelligence ?
    • Mar 27 2011: Hi Harald,

      if AI is to interface with humans then I think emotional intelligence is very important. Perhaps it might be also important to a group of AIs given that emotional intelligence is important for group interaction and cooperation?

      I am guessing that there is nothing that AI cannot do in terms of knowledge, orientation in any environment and emotional intelligence, at least as seen by the external observer. Whether internally AI has similar perceptions as humans like having feeling, pain or consciousness is another question that we might never have an answer for.
      • thumb
        Mar 28 2011: Hi Zdenek, that's precisely the point. Can AI have feelings or even consciousness ? Emotional intelligence depends on feelings (feeling of empathy). So if AI cannot feel, then it probably couldn't show any emotional intelligence.
        But then as I said, I don't think emotional intelligence would be necessary between machines (as long as they don't have feelings). It might be of advantage for machines interacting with humans, but even then it's probably not essential.
        Just think how you would react differently whether a person calls you an idiot or a machine.
        • Mar 28 2011: If we map the human brain's neural network on a computer, completely and fully, then we "turn it on" and let it "think" will it think like a human? If it's mapped identically, it seems logical that it would. As our computing power and understanding of the brain increases it seems reasonable to believe that we will someday (if not relatively soon) have the ability to do just that. I'm very tempted to believe that if that should come to pass, machines will be able to think and behave exactly as we do.
        • Mar 30 2011: Hi Harald, if we program AI to understand and act as if it has feeling then I would think it will have emotional intelligence?

          If machine calls me an idiot I can take it seriously (or people will) because if the AI looks like human then people feel like it is human. Look at the recent advances in robotics. People have increasingly identical feelings toward robots as to humans because robots increasingly look like humans in appearance and interaction =)

          I think emotions play important part of drive to live and work so perhaps AIs need it too? But that is just my feeling ;)
      • thumb
        Mar 29 2011: Nick, I think at this point this is a rethorical question, because as far as I know, we are far from having the technical capabilities to map the brain on a computer.
        Even if it should be possible one day, I'm not sure that a computer would be equal to a human brain.
        This question (and it's answer) also has deep implications for religious beliefer. If, what you say, is correct, then religion will be obsolete I suppose.
        • Mar 31 2011: Why? I would assume that a digital duplication of a human brain would wonder about the same things a normal one does. A computer pondering existence, spirituality and religion seems possible if this were to happen. A perfect digital copy would, in theory, work the same way. So I don't really see religion going away because of such technology. In fact, some science fiction suggests that such thinking machines would even develop new religions or take our religions steps further.

          The technology is not as far off as it seems either.
          "Scientists perform cat-scale cortical simulations and map the human brain in effort to build advanced chip technology"
          http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/28842.wss

          Taking what computing power it took to do that, apply Moore's law, and in a couple of decades our PCs will have the computing power to emulate a cats brain and a super computer will be many times more powerful and likely able to emulate more complex brains.
      • thumb
        Mar 31 2011: Nick, Moors law is soon coming to an end. At least when it comes to silicone based computer chips. You can't reduce chips infinitely. According to INTEL, the predicted increase in processor power (Moore's law) that worked for the past 45 years or so, will come to a halt by approx. 2020. By then, other technologies will have to be developed to keep processor power increasing.
        So, for me, there are still too many question marks. At this point the question of whether we can or can not map a brain on a computer chip is pure speculation.
        I think we can agree that computers are entities working based on logic. The world of computers is reduced to a world of 0s and 1s. Where should religion find a place in this rational computer world. Religion, is inherently illogical.
        • Apr 1 2011: Our brains are based in a reality of logic as well. Neurons fire because of electric and chemical reactions. All of reality obeys the laws of physics. We humans are as equally 1s and 0s as machine code in our purest source. We're just a collection of electrons and protons whirling around and bouncing between neutrons, right? So why should religion exist within us? 1s and 0s are the smallest pieces, and our world, or existence, our beings can be reduced to 1s and 0s because we're all atomic based and atoms follow rules just like 1s and 0s. To simulate our reality on computers will be more than possible in the future.

          The only thing holding it back is cost and time. Because of the parallel nature of the processing, we already have the power, we'd just need to keep throwing more processors at the problem like modern day super computers. IBM threw 147,000 processors at the cat brain work above. How many processors will it take to make a human brain? Is it already possible? Our super computer FP operations per second have been climbing hugely. And simply throwing more processors at it can make it go up even more.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_computers#Timeline_of_supercomputers

          So while the silicon size limit will put a stop to single processor speed growth, we'll instead be throwing more processors at the problem. And should some new technology (like graphene based processors) come along and replace or supplement our silicon based technology, who knows how quickly our processing speeds will increase?

          But at their cores computer code and our reality aren't that different at all.
      • thumb
        Apr 4 2011: Nick, in some way you are right. The whole universe can probably be reduced to 1s and 0s. However, somehow, we as human manage to bring an irrational component into the game, something computers don't do.
        But as I said, we don't fully understand yet, how our brains work, hence it's difficult to imagine how, if at all, we can map the brain to a computer.
        Also, having an emotional computer would probably be a step back. One thing that we appreciate in a computer is that it provides objective answers to a question. We probably wouldn't want to depend on a machine that has a bad temper.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.