Robots will not take over the world
Expert says artificial intelligence involves some dangerous myths
by Carl Wieland
Published: 2 February 2010(GMT+10)
Wikipedia.org. Released under the
GFDL
Artificial intelligence, or “AI” is an enthralling research field. As
computing speeds get ever faster, it has spawned many predictions, from science
fiction writers as well as from serious researchers in the field, of a world in
which superintelligent machines with consciousness “take over” the planet.
Fans of such predictions will be disappointed by recent statements from a leading
AI researcher—Noel Sharkey, Professor of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics
at the University of Sheffield. In a recent interview,1 he claimed that these were “fairy tales”,
based on the unproven belief that intelligence was “computational”.
He says that “there is no evidence that machines will ever overtake us or
gain sentience [conscious self-awareness].”
There is no evidence that machines will ever overtake us or gain sentience—Noel
Sharkey, Professor of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics
While not claiming any sort of religious belief himself, he says that when he tells
others that there is no evidence that our own intelligence is related to the way
computers work, they become “almost religious” in their (anti-religious)
reactions. They accuse him of saying that the mind must therefore work in “supernatural”
ways. But while accepting that the brain is a physical system, he says “it
could be a physical system that cannot be recreated by a computer”.
Sharkey uses topflight chessplaying computer programs as an example of “some
very smart things done by humans that are done in dumb ways by machines”.
Even though chess requires a great deal of intelligence in pattern-recognition and
so forth, some supercomputers today can overwhelm even some of the world’s
best chess players. But the way they do this is quite different from humans—it
does not involve intelligence at all, but rather the sheer “brute force”
of calculations.
AI—the science of illusion
Many of the AI achievements people get excited over are really using trick and illusion
Sharkey comments that many of the AI achievements people get excited over are really
using “trick and illusion” to make the machines appear almost alive—such
as language programs that “search databases to find conversationally appropriate
sentences” or “machines that can recognise emotion and manipulate silicon
faces to show empathy.” He says, “If AI workers would accept the trickster
role and be honest about it, we might progress a lot quicker.”
When he told reporters that he did not believe machines were going to take over
the world, they lost interest.
He says that there seems to be a desire in people to see machines as being potentially
like animals and humans. Sharkey says that this leads to a “willing suspension
of disbelief”, even among his fellow researchers in the field. He is concerned
that this fantasy-led drive could lead to a dystopian world. Emotionless robots
could be widely used to substitute for humans in such things as care of the elderly,
who need the “love and human contact” that only a real person can provide.
Sharkey’s candour on the subject, while refreshing, is not popular. He used
to get calls from reporters asking for comments on the subject, but when he told
them that he did not believe that machines were going to take over the world, they
were not interested in reporting it or talking to him further.
Undeterred, Sharkey comes right out and states about the many impressive achievements
in his field what should perhaps be obvious: “It is the person who designs
the algorithms and programs the machine who is intelligent, not the machine itself.”
How amazing to contemplate the superintelligence of the One who designed the human
brain, capable of such feats, in the first place.
Recommended Resources
References
- “The revolution will not be roboticised”, Nic
Fleming, New Scientist 29 August 2009, pp. 28–29. Return to
text.
| If you were to read an article every day from this site it would take you 20 years to read them all. Such a wealth of information didn’t arise by chance. Please help us to keep on keeping on.  | | |
|
