I think intelligence can be artificial to some extent. Banks use artificial intelligence systems to organize operations and make stock investment choices. Work places use robots to do jobs that are too dangerous for humans. Just like Deep Blue, they can be specialized to perform almost any task. Specialized to do it very well in fact. But, like the Chinese Room concluded, true consiousness can’t be achieved by formal logic systems. It’s purely syntax. Yes, I think robots can most definitely be smarter than humans or mimic us enough so that they are indistinguishable from us like in the Turing Test, but their intelligence will always lack what ours does not: the X factor. Emotion, consciousness, and understanding all add to our intelligence of the world, something a robot can’t have. Consciousness and understanding is part of how we learn, grow, and better ourselves. For a robot to lack this is what makes its intelligence ‘artificial’. It’s fake. It has been programmed to know what it knows. It can’t be programmed to feel or experience emotion. Searle’s arguments are convincing. Machines can output information only from what they have been programmed to know by their maker (s). The only intelligence they have is the intelligence of the people that created it. I do find it interesting, though, that in a way humans have also been programmed to think the way we think. Society condemns certain decisions with punishment and our families and friends influence and shape our morals and life goals. In some places in the world, humans are even more programmed by their government’s or religion’s restrictions. In that way, our intelligence is also programmed.
But the only way a robot will ever be able to have the same intelligence we have will be if we as humans can figure out dualism, or what distinguishes our brains from our minds. Or if they are even able to be separated. Our conscious ability to interpret sensory information and make judgments from our own interaction with the world and not from a program is what ultimately makes our natural intelligence not fake, artificial intelligence. That is why it is called “artificial” because it is technically not real.
Daniel Estrada | 27-Feb-07 at 2:39 pm | Permalink
I think that AI is ‘artificial’ simply in the sense that it is not natural, but cognitive scientists would argue that AI is no less ‘real’ than any other form of intelligence.
Ryan Marshall | 28-Feb-07 at 5:27 pm | Permalink
I agree that the only way artificial intelligence will be real is if we can distinguish what makes our brains different from those of machines. After all though, if we are able to do that then we would have a complete understanding of human nature that, in my opinion, is not completely possible. Throughout time we have only been able to come up with theories on why we do what we do. It is not clearly definable. Therefore, I think that we will never be able to find exactly what it is that distinguishes us from machines.
Ryan Riordan | 28-Feb-07 at 11:03 pm | Permalink
i find your point about humans being programmed to be both interesting and true. we are shaped by the people we grow up with and this “programming” happens at a very young age. everybody is a bit different from these experiences. the effects parents, peers,and environment have on us is tremendous. we are molded for the most part, the way we react to certain things and the way we deal with people is highly affected by the way we have been “programmed” in a sense. for us though, we have the abiliity to go outside of the way we were “programmed” because we can change our feelings depending on circumstances. i think there are probably machines that can do this too but i am not totally sure.
Stehpanie Prather | 01-Mar-07 at 9:20 pm | Permalink
To Daniel: Although cognitive scientists would argue that the intelligence of machines is just as real as our own, I think that the semantics imply that the initnial purpose of AI was not to exceed or replace the role of human beings. I think “artificial” is a very limiting word, that means the purpose of this technology is not to replace the holistic importance of human beings. Furthermore, the more “real” these machines become, the more human beings will feel isolated from one another. This could be quite a slippery slope.
Adam Domanico | 01-Mar-07 at 10:45 pm | Permalink
To Stephanie: I disagree with you. I think that the whole purpose of inventing machines is to replace the role of humans. Computers are desined to imitate the human mind and to do the things we can do but faster and without any error. The machines we have now do replace human labor unfortunately. Luckly, however, they increase output which creates other jobs. I do not think that there is “fake” intelligence. What would make something fake if it is expressed in the same way? This is the same question that Turing argues for since understanding or the means are irrelevant as long as imitation is accomplished. It is very scary but technology is designed to replace human labor. There is no doubt that machines cannot yet imitate or replace the wholistic significance of humans but the question is will they ever be able too?