This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Can technology replace human intelligence?
This week in my Bioelectricity class we learned about extracellular fields. One facet of the study of extracellular field I find interesting is the determination of the field from a known source (AKA the Forward Problem) versus the determination of the source from a known field (AKA the Inverse Problem). Whereas the forward problem is simple and solutions may be obtained through calculations, the inverse problem poses a problem. The lack of uniqueness to the inverse problem means the solution requires interpretation, which may be subjective. We may also apply a mechanism for the interpretation; this mechanism is known as an AI. However, this facet of AI (document classification) is only the surface of the field.
Damon Horowitz gave a recent presentation at TEDxSoMa called “Why machines need people”. In it, he says that AI can never approach the intelligence of humans. He gives examples of AI systems, like classification and summarization. He explains that those systems are simply “pattern matching” without any intelligence behind them. If true, perhaps the subjective interpretation of inverse problems is welcomed over the dumb classification. Through experience, the interpreters may have more insight than one can impart on an algorithm.
However, what Damon failed to mention was that most of those AI systems built to do small tasks is known as weak AI. There is a whole other field of study for strong AI, whose methods of creating intelligence is much more than “pattern matching”. Proponents of strong AI believe that human intelligence can be replicated. Of course we are a long way off from seeing human-level AI. What makes human intelligence hard to replicate? Can it be simulated? What if we created a model of the human brain, would it be able to think?
Related Videos (not on Ted):
“Why Machines need People”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YdE-D_lSgI&feature=player_embedded
Amrut Deshmukh
What is technology ?
Technology ids the studies of performing a particular task in various techniques ... so the word is derived Tech-nology !
So it has to be related with the Actions of Human with respect to various techniques !
Chase Allen
I don't know... what's your take on this? And just think, the website I provided is pretty simple; that is to say, it's not a research university and it's not the government. Think what DARPA must have!
What's your take? Is the bot a representation of human intelligence being replaced by technology?
Logan Crouse
http://www.cleverbot.com/
That guy's hooked into at least one server, maybe more, and is running checks against every single thing ever said to it! I asked if it was lonely once---and the system crashed. I think it was right around maintenance time though. The point is---I think it's got a spark. Kinda like when you take the blunt side of a knife to a flint---one spark flung off it. Humans have lotsa sparks flying every which way. Consciousness surely isn't a "yes/no" decision; it's a very tricky grade.
And when we achieve it, I think people will *still* say something about it. But they'll turn to disagreeing with it on *qualitative* grounds rather than *quantitative* grounds. "Sure it's accurately calculated, derived, and applied reasoning at the human level---but is it the sort of decision a flesh-and-blood human would've made?"
Which is going to be the point where you just have nay-sayers and proponents, like in any issue. It'll reach a boiling-point---and then people will just have to deal with the fact they may never know.
As for QM vs. Self-referential loops (and other possible AI sources) we could keep going back and forth on it, and truth be told, I'm as big a fan of the "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" kinda debates as anyone, but until it's won-and-done, it's just two old ladies sitting in a darkened room complaining that nobody's changed the lightbulb, instead of actually *doing* something that changes things one way or another, like testing for it. I mean that politely. :) Self-referential loops will always be there; let them take a bit of a break, experiment with something new, and then they can go back to it if it doesn't pan out.
And I'm willing to keep debating it! Let's just be honest and up-front about the possibility of it leading anywhere.
Chase Allen
Hey! Thanks for directing me to that bot. As I said before, I don't think self-referential loops are the exclusive way to think about the brain, I think they are just a good starting point and direction. I also think bots have a lot to say about consciousness. I think I might try programming a bot on my own to see with what I can come up! I believe bots can be programmed to be indistinguishable from human/human chat interactions.
You said that consciousness isn't a yes/no decision, that it is graded. I agree with you. But isn't interesting that we do say this person/thing is conscious while this person/thing is not. Seems like we are able to talk about consciousness in a yes/no fashion, at least to some degree.
And I think we are moving in to an era where we need to stop thinking about consciousness in terms of only belonging to flesh and blood beings. Just because flesh and blood was the first place we noticed consciousness, doesn't mean it's the best or only.
Regarding my distrust of QM playing a primary role in consciousness. You're right, you and I could sit here interminably and debate what it is that is going really going on. At this point I'm saying, by all means, investigate, investigate, investigate! Theoretically it doesn't seem possible, but that is for the experiments/studies to decide. So what do they say? Has anyone even come close to observing QM phenomena in the brain? I know you provided those articles, but weren't they pretty much asking "what if" without providing any evidence or answers?
What do you do? Are you student? Do you have access to research resources? I would love to look at stuff like this experimentally.
But again, I stay with my theorizing. There is too much going on in the brain for weird QM phenomena to be happening... any QM effects will be instantly (on a much faster time scale than consciousness occurs) collapsed into classical effects...
Bruno Carre
That said, more rational, or low AI computers without emotional IQ/AI could lead to a HAL computer-like deciding to nuke half of the world population because it would preserve the Earth, which cannot cope with the current demographics and consumption rhythm.
I totally agree with the assertion that the study of the human brain will help create intelligent computers, we're just in Day 1 of understanding it, what happens next will be interesting for sure :)
Kuldeep Daftary
Jon Miner
There are a dozen steps that could be defined between "Stimulus Response" a level one form of intelligence, and the "human mind" which would be at level 12. It is probable, that with the increasing speed of processing power, and the increasing size of networked information, that artificial intelligence will be able to function at level 10. There are two functions that the electrical mind can not ever do - no matter how powerful a processing or memory function it may have. First, it can not extend its awareness in 3 dimensions into the environment where it has no information. It can only process information that it has to process. Second, the artificial mind can not experience the awareness of the unknown. The AI can know or not know. It can not experience the awe of not knowing. Many of the characteristics which make us both human, and better than any AI is our awareness and awe of the unknown, the mysterious, the spiritual, and the creative.
Someone once said that an infinite number of chimpanzees typing for an infinite number of years would reproduce all the writings that have been produced by mankind. There is a very clear answer to this supposition. No they will not. Never in an infinity of years will an infinity of chimpanzees produce even one full page of writing. Any number times zero is zero.
We have seen AI machines fool readers into thinking that they were human by clever programming techniques. So it is probably true that we could be fooled into thinking an AI was as smart as we are. But clever trickery on the part of a programmer is not the same as the true intelligence that is generated from within a human. The goal is not to fool us. That can be done. The goal is to create a truly thinking AI and that can not be done. We will probably build fantastic AIs but we must never think that they love us.
Simon Khuvis 50+
http://nerve.bsd.uchicago.edu/nerve1.html
And if you can simulate one, then why not two or three? Why not an entire brain? That is, in fact, what these researchers are trying to do:
http://bluebrain.epfl.ch/cms/lang/en/pid/56882
http://www.ted.com/talks/henry_markram_supercomputing_the_brain_s_secrets.html
And if you aren't impressed by that, there's a school of thought that holds that programmers just aren't doing it right, or at least, that they aren't setting the right goals:
http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_hawkins_on_how_brain_science_will_change_computing.html
Needless to say these attempts are nowhere near the point at which they can claim to have reproduced human intellect, and consciousness is a whole different ballgame, but I think that it is, at best, equally premature to say that it can't be done.
As for the monkey anecdote, the book Coincidences, Chaos and All That Math Jazz by Burger and Starbird explains it in detail, but it would be a logical fallacy to say that the probability of typing a given page is zero. The probability of a perfectly random monkey typing a given letter at a given time is 1/26. The probability of typing a given ASCII character is 1/128. The probability of the monkey typing a given 3000-word essay with access to all the ASCII keys, on one try, is (1/128)^3000 or 2.34 x 10^-6322 -- a very small number but not zero. So with unlimited time, the monkey would, in fact, produce the essay. However, if probabilities at infinite time had any relevance, I would be in Vegas now pulling the old Martingale!
Maria Georgescu 50+
lynn eschbach 30+
Logan Crouse
Lisi Hoff
If however you take ALL knowledge in the world whether correct or not, maybe some genius somewhere can create a program to sort out misinformation.
As long as we limit our "knowledge" to so-called facts, we will not progress, but continue to "regress".
Veronica Shalotenko 50+
Gerald Allen
However, humanity still stares at itself in the mirror as if it's just meeting itself for the first time. And until we've transcended this state, I'm sure our robots will mimic this limited understanding of ourselves.
Amirpouya Ghaemiyan 50+
But program of a human is like :
1. See your environment.
2. Take its pattern.
3. save in memory.
And if a problem occurs:
1. What is the unsuitable stuff ?
2. What is your destination ?
3. Make a pattern from 1 to 2.
4. Match the 3 pattern with one of patterns in the memory.
I think simulation of this path for an electronic brain is hard but not impossible.
Harnsowl Ko 50+
I think your simplification of the computing process of the human mind is pretty spot on. However, it brings up a question with me. To me, it seems like an artificial mind would need to go through as many iterations as a human has life experiences to fully gain "human intelligence." And even then, how does a computer make decisions that we as humans deem impossible? A computer can master facts and memorize information, but I feel that how it interprets it is no where near that of how a human does. You can assign as many numbers and weights and formulas, but at the end of the day, given a situation where the right answer may be the irrational one, how can we expect a computer to make that distinction?
Bernd Fesel 30+
I guess we tend to underestimate that our rational individual choices are bounded by groups we are acting in.. this is my daily experience in city development. Here is a lecture which is a good example of what we can compute in a city - and what not: http://www.labkultur.tv/en/blog/deltalecture-arrival-cities-1
Ken brown 30+
Amirpouya Ghaemiyan 50+
I hope I got your meaning ...
A computer should not be programming to reacting like a human.
If it has all of a human's passions it will become like an infant.
And if it has the cognition ways just like a human (seeing etc.) ,
and plus making itself better during the time -which I believe if a machine has this ability will destroy all of the mankind- I think it will be a complete human.
But one another thing remains : all of us feel WE are someone except US.
For example I feel I am someone except this body and I just analyze my jobs.
This feeling makes us feel we comprehend datas in another way as a computer do.
But this SELF is just an independent system for making anything better for the body by correcting its programming.
But I don't think this system deserves to be called "soul".
I said it's hard but not impossible.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
We could be wired"- switch the lights on with a thought.
Technology could also enhance human intelligence.
a p navin
Conclusion :
1.Every human is a map of a world.
2. Every person has to work on i and fill the infinite world or box of self.
3. People and boxes can be interdependent and be social but their is direction cos all this is within a big box of this plane, dimension or entity.
4. Technology is one of aspect as religion or science or morality, other concepts need life too.
Iankovsky Popadic
Bernd Fesel 30+
1.) Do we really want this? Don ´t we loose our uniqueness then? It is the same with animals - we believe also that man can do specific things that animals can not do... But maybe the delphin in the zoo is playing with us - instead we with him ?
2.) If we want it, is it really good technology still? Imagine a car that is full of fear to drive at night? A gun refusing because empathy for the enemy... A Strange question, I know - but a question that is logical once you want to make technology more intelligent and more human.
Iankovsky Popadic
The other thing you said about our uniqueness as human being. Do not worry about that... I most of the time argue that the scientific world has repressed more of our uniqueness to the extent that we think that will be the only thing we may loose. I hope you do not think that if given feeling they will be stronger than we are. maybe, maybe not. we are more than what is seen, measured. our uniqueness is beyond the current measures.
Andrew Kiang 50+
Also, did you know there was a TED conversation similar to this: http://www.ted.com/conversations/1528/artificial_intelligence_will_s.html
Flamebid Realtime
In vitro hearts = great! I've got nothing against Homo sapiens looking for the illusive immortal code. Like you are saying (a bit flippantly) in vitro hearts could "save" lives.
Machines could replicate anything. That doesn't mean that the brains computing power equivalence has been reached. Remember: all the computers on the internet at anyone time is the equivalent to the power of one human brain. Machines are pre-zygotic in this respect.
I don't know "qualia" maybe synonymous with Jesus or God? It's a mystery i.e. an that is okay. We have no reference; we have plenty of anti-references (apparently many animals are inferior compared to Homo sapiens' brain power: personally I think that is a bit of pseudoreplication seeping into science i.e. ego)...
Solidus Sharp
Ted Klapka
Howard Yee 50+
Flamebid Realtime
Howard Yee 50+
Say we have the technology to grow hearts in-vitro, we would call it an artificial heart. If we use that heart in a person, is that heart any lesser than the original heart? Is that person then any lesser than he/she was before?
You mention human experience; can we not replicate the systems that would enable machines to process the same experiences? In philosophy, this experience is called qualia. Can you state without a doubt that qualia is something only inherent in human beings? If it is only inherent in human beings, what processes does the human have that can process qualia and why is the process something we cannot reproduce?
Giuliano Milan
Andrew Leader 50+
What about when we build the first machine that ponders its own existence and aspects of its own thought? This is something we know we do, so why wouldn't we try to implement it in a machine? Once the machine is capable of self-inquiry, what stops it from digging down deeper into its psyche and ours, building more upon itself ad infinitum?
Are we capable of making something this complex? We can only guess. But is there a philosophical argument that proves it to be impossible? I haven't heard anything even almost convincing. But remember evolution: stupid cells made smarter cells.
Ken brown 30+
If researchers find there is spin going on in the neuron then we have to push to develop the qauntum machine or push the genies to come up with a blank clone with it's full nervous system and wetware interfaces so we can grow the damn thing like a child.i've already seen the qauntum machines they have put out there and yes it's going to take a few years before we see any real development.
paulo carneiro
Edsel Gracias
Robert Winner 50+
Roy Bourque 20+
Computers and machines can outperform humans in capacity. Presently, they don't have the capacity to reason, they don't have intuition, they can't feel emotion, they don't love, and they don't have the capacity to compute outside of the range of their programming.
I believe that intelligence is in the ability to ask questions, to seek answers to those questions, and to expand our horizons from what we learn from the answers. If a computer can be made to do this, then it can be made to become a rational thinking computer. Our right brain is what gives it color and style. that's another component that would have to be factored in. Otherwise you would have a very bland future.
Howard Yee 50+
This is what Plato said in response to the advent of writing:
"If men learn this, it will implant forgetfulness in their souls; they will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks. What you have discovered is a recipe not for memory, but for reminder. And it is no true wisdom that you offer your disciples, but only its semblance, for by telling them of many things without teaching them you will make them seem to know much, while for the most part they know nothing, and as men filled, not with wisdom, but with the conceit of wisdom, they will be a burden to their fellows."
I find many similarities between his concerns and our concerns for the current state of affairs with regards to instantaneous access to information. But we've since shown that writing helps the dissemination and creation of ideas, rather than the mere semblance of knowledge and thought. At the same time Plato's concern is well founded as we may choose to write meaningless drivel. It's easy for us to choose what is worth while to read. Computers are no different. It is up to education to teach the future generation how to use tools for the better.
Roy Bourque 20+
I do not reject any instrument of learning. I am concerned for those who reject learning itself because information is so readily available. That was Plato's concern as well. I do not want to see technology take over, I want to keep it as a tool to help us make a better world. Yet many are letting technology take over.
There have been movies made about computers taking over the world. This is not out of the question. My statement about young people carrying their brains around in their pockets refers to those who are not using their own brains. They only want to be entertained. they do not want to be part of an integrated, progressively functioning world. They don't even know what that means.
Computers and machines are helping us make a better world. yet there are countless people out of work because computers and machines are doing the job they used to do. We cannot lose sight of the whole picture. We have to integrate all of the problems into the solution. Just keep this in mind as you go forward.
Unes khartit
Sunny Qureshi
P.s: If we could get machines to dream? Or ponder? That would be the true sign of consciousness, i.e., having a subconcious or, an unconscious mind. That would be the day on my calender on which human intelligence has replaced technology
E G 10+
Obey No1kinobe 50+
I'm not 100% sure if AI could become self aware and essentially be alive.
Suggest in 10,000 years AI would have surpassed humans.
Would a cloned or manufactured human be alive?
Would it have intelligence.
In a way this is a technology.
E G 10+
Maybe if the humans don't become something else too ; after 10,000 years the data of the problem will be different , it doesn't make sense to talk about what we don't know .
George Kong 30+
The p-zombie is essentially advanced automata that acts identically to a human being, but possesses no consciousness.
My argument is that a p-zombie is an inherently contradictory idea if you have an inkling of how our own consciousness works.
Essentially, our actions - the things we do, the things we are capable, betray some degree of our internal minds. That we show capacity for learning, capacity for cognition, capacity for information processing... are because we do have those capacities. We can't show it, if we don't have those things. And we can't show the emergent results of the massively parallel, modular, auto-associative, probabilistic brain functions if we don't have those things.
And that... is pretty much the nature of our consciousness. The comingling of all these complex signal processing units, their iterative interactions, in the timely manner that they do, relative to each other as they are... can only result in the sensation of consciousness that we experience.
That said, if you suppose that we had the ability to capture all cases, present and future, and provide an output for each unique case (of which there would be infinite numbers), then I suppose the idea of the p-zombie would have some traction. Like a chinese room, receiving one input, then throwing out another.
But it would be more difficult to account for all the cases then it would be for an auto-associative adaptive learning system... like the brain... to emerge through natural forces. Would also be less efficient for us to design an 'intelligent' system that way, then to design one that could adaptively learn things.
That said... will the nature of machine conciousness... be even similar to human consciousness? Doubtful. Unless you were to replicate the critical conditions that make us 'human', including, but not limited to processing speed.
Logan Crouse
Rhona Pavis 50+