Artificial Intelligence? No Such Thing.

[Meta Island]

The following applies to all the iterations of intelligence that suit you: knowledge, judgment, awareness, intuition, skill, etc.

If intelligence arises from algorithms interacting with data, then intelligence is just intelligence no matter what is used to create it.

If the argument is that machine-generated intelligence is artificial, consider that even human intelligence is artificial in the sense that it arises from atoms scattered across the Universe that eventually organized into human beings by way of algorithms sourced from the “machine” of the Universe.

The algorithms, of course, are themselves a form of intelligence. Algorithms like addition and subtraction are not human creations – they are integral to the activities of interfering waves, activities that preceded human existence.

The built-in design of the Universe is intelligence creating intelligence. Which begs the question: What is artificial about Artificial Intelligence?

When it is useful to distinguish among the generators of intelligence, one possible solution is to designate each generator as a level of another. Levels 1, 2, 3 – Universe Generated, Human Generated, Machine Generated (as in 2001’s Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic Computer).

[Sy Borg]

The word "artificial" in context of AI could be considered synonymous with "synthetic intelligence" or "technological intelligence", as opposed to "biological intelligence".

I personally don't see anything as "artificial", that technology is simply further development and complexification of the Earth's surface, as has been happening for billions of years, albeit with periodic interruptions by extinctions.

The question is then why humans consider themselves and their works not to be part of nature.

[heracleitos]

With regards to the term "artificial intelligence", I think that Orwell's notion of meaningless word is nicely applicable.

Orwell writes the following in his essay "Politics and the English language" about "meaningless words":

The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable’. The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice, have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of régime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. Statements like Marshal Pétain was a true patriot, The Soviet press is the freest in the world, The Catholic Church is opposed to persecution, are almost always made with intent to deceive. Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: class, totalitarian, science, progressive, reactionary, bourgeois, equality.

Now that I have made this catalogue of swindles and perversions, let me give another example of the kind of writing that they lead to.

In politics, meaningless words are important instruments for praising and vilifying without committing to having said anything at all.

In technology, the term "artificial intelligence" is used to bamboozle non-technical laymen, as to project an aura of intractable magic, in order to extract large budgets out of idiots who should never have been appointed to manage these budgets.

The term "artificial intelligence" is a useful instrument in the arsenal of tools to inflate one's own invoice. Another example in the same arsenal, is "bike-shedding" a detailed budget proposal:

He dramatizes this "law of triviality" with the example of a committee's deliberations on an atomic reactor, contrasting it to deliberations on a bicycle shed. As he put it: "The time spent on any item of the agenda will be in inverse proportion to the sum [of money] involved." A reactor is so vastly expensive and complicated that an average person cannot understand it (see ambiguity aversion), so one assumes that those who work on it understand it. However, everyone can visualize a cheap, simple bicycle shed, so planning one can result in endless discussions because everyone involved wants to implement their own proposal and demonstrate personal contribution.

So, if there is an imbecilatius sitting in front of you, or even the rex imbecilorum himself, while he is trying to decide how to spend a few billions of someone else's dollars, then make sure to use the aforementioned arsenal to your own benefit.

[Pattern-chaser]

"Artificial intelligence" should be considered synonymous with "human-made intelligence", or maybe "human-initiated intelligence", as 'proper' AI would be able to direct its own course of development. So I agree, not really 'artificial' at all.

[AverageBozo]

"Artificial intelligence" should be considered synonymous with "human-made intelligence", or maybe "human-initiated intelligence", as 'proper' AI would be able to direct its own course of development. So I agree, not really 'artificial' at all.

I think that that course of development is actually done by machine learning, so I like your usage of “human-initiated intelligence”. Of course this begs the question of whether learning simply depends on intelligence or actually is intelligence.

[Meta Island]

The word "artificial" in context of AI could be considered synonymous with "synthetic intelligence" or "technological intelligence", as opposed to "biological intelligence".

I personally don't see anything as "artificial", that technology is simply further development and complexification of the Earth's surface, as has been happening for billions of years, albeit with periodic interruptions by extinctions.

The question is then why humans consider themselves and their works not to be part of nature.

Your last sentence brings to mind my go-to quote: "Never does Nature say one thing and Wisdom another." Juvenal

[Sy Borg]

The word "artificial" in context of AI could be considered synonymous with "synthetic intelligence" or "technological intelligence", as opposed to "biological intelligence".

I personally don't see anything as "artificial", that technology is simply further development and complexification of the Earth's surface, as has been happening for billions of years, albeit with periodic interruptions by extinctions.

The question is then why humans consider themselves and their works not to be part of nature.

Your last sentence brings to mind my go-to quote: "Never does Nature say one thing and Wisdom another." Juvenal

What was once common knowledge - that we are part of the land rather than owners of it - has become niche as our societies have ever more encapsulated themselves against the wild.

[heracleitos]

In technology sales, the goal is to bamboozle the idiot sitting in front of you. It is not that hard. You just have to learn the vocabulary.

[heracleitos]

By the way, George Orwell's literary opus is the arsenal whence each evil heretic has drawn his deceptive arguments!

The Honorable
Johan Eck
Imperial emissary and legatus extraordinarius pontificis Romani to the central barbarian tribes

[Sy Borg]

The idea of "artificial intelligence" was around long before we could create it. https://www.wired.com/insights/2015/01/ ... elligence/

Some people were talking about it in the 1950s.

Alan Turing, British mathematician and WWII code-breaker, is widely credited as being one of the first people to come up with the idea of machines that think in 1950. He even created the Turing test, which is still used today, as a benchmark to determine a machine’s ability to “think” like a human. Though his ideas were ridiculed at the time, they set the wheels in motion, and the term “artificial intelligence” entered popular awareness in the mid-1950s, after Turing died.

American cognitive scientist Marvin Minsky picked up the AI torch and co-founded the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s AI laboratory in 1959, and he was one of the leading thinkers in the field through the 1960s and 1970s. He even advised Stanley Kubrick on “2001: A Space Odyssey,” released in 1968, which gave the world one of the best representations of AI in the form of HAL 9000. The rise of the personal computer in the 1980s sparked even more interest in machines that think.

[heracleitos]

The idea of "artificial intelligence" was around long before we could create it. https://www.wired.com/insights/2015/01/ ... elligence/
Some people were talking about it in the 1950s.

Even though I certainly admit that Turing's other big publication, the Halting Problem is clearly an acclaimed and genius hack, I have to completely reject Turing's test.

The source code for a program is a letter stream and therefore can be represented as one single natural number.
Therefore, a property about a program, such as "isIntelligent" is a predicate acting on a natural number in arithmetic theory.
Since the Turing test uses interactive human input, this predicate is uncomputable and even undefinable in arithmetic theory.

For Turing's "isIntelligent" predicate to be definable in arithmetic theory, we would have to define and mirror each human involved in the test as a predicate in arithmetic theory, as such that the predicate would always give the same answer as the human that it mirrors. This can obviously not be done. So, Turing clearly did not solve the real, underlying problem.

Furthermore, I consider the use of an undefinable and uncomputable property of legitimate objects in arithmetic theory, i.e. natural numbers, to be an exercise in selling mere snake oil.

Of course, that does not detract from the fact that Turing's real genius publication, his Halting Problem, is a perfectly legitimate theorem in arithmetic theory.

[Count Lucanor]

The following applies to all the iterations of intelligence that suit you: knowledge, judgment, awareness, intuition, skill, etc.

If intelligence arises from algorithms interacting with data, then intelligence is just intelligence no matter what is used to create it.

But intelligence does not arise from algorithms. Try something else.

[Sy Borg]

The idea of "artificial intelligence" was around long before we could create it. https://www.wired.com/insights/2015/01/ ... elligence/
Some people were talking about it in the 1950s.

Even though I certainly admit that Turing's other big publication, the Halting Problem is clearly an acclaimed and genius hack, I have to completely reject Turing's test.

The source code for a program is a letter stream and therefore can be represented as one single natural number.
Therefore, a property about a program, such as "isIntelligent" is a predicate acting on a natural number in arithmetic theory.
Since the Turing test uses interactive human input, this predicate is uncomputable and even undefinable in arithmetic theory.

For Turing's "isIntelligent" predicate to be definable in arithmetic theory, we would have to define and mirror each human involved in the test as a predicate in arithmetic theory, as such that the predicate would always give the same answer as the human that it mirrors. This can obviously not be done. So, Turing clearly did not solve the real, underlying problem.

Furthermore, I consider the use of an undefinable and uncomputable property of legitimate objects in arithmetic theory, i.e. natural numbers, to be an exercise in selling mere snake oil.

Of course, that does not detract from the fact that Turing's real genius publication, his Halting Problem, is a perfectly legitimate theorem in arithmetic theory.

A practical example of the Turing test failing comes from automated phone services, with which customers can arrange appointments. Reportedly, the system is so good that many customers believed they were speaking to a real person. In that sense, the phone system passed the Turing test, but that phone system wouldn't even have the sentience of a pond snail.

So you see a potential pathway to sentience in learning, self-improving machines that are exposed to diverse stimuli over an extended period?

[heracleitos]

A practical example of the Turing test failing comes from automated phone services, with which customers can arrange appointments. Reportedly, the system is so good that many customers believed they were speaking to a real person. In that sense, the phone system passed the Turing test

That is not a legitimate arithmetic "test" because that would require that a second system decides if the first system is speaking like a real person. It is also not a legitimate scientific "test" because that would require that a second tester can consistently reproduce the result, which is not the case, because that would require him to have access to the same people as in the initial test. So, what kind of "test" is it supposedly?

So you see a potential pathway to sentience in learning, self-improving machines that are exposed to diverse stimuli over an extended period?

That would require reverse engineering the technology of biology, which is not of human origin. There is absolutely no guarantee that this would even be possible. The design could be encrypted, even just for security reasons.

How to Protect Your Business from Reverse Engineering & Code Modification

If the technology of biology, which is obviously of non-human origin, uses any of the measures mentioned in the link above, for any unspecified or further unknown reason, then it even actively defends against reverse engineering. In that case, good luck trying to figure out how to reproduce a clean-room rebuild or other prototype.

If we ever ran into non-trivial technology from outer-space aliens, there is an almost zero likelihood that we would be able to reverse engineer it, especially, if it contains military functions. As biological beings are certainly known to defend and attack -- they do it all the time -- chances are that their blueprint has been purposely obfuscated.

[Sy Borg]

It is testing in the field.