I’ve just got to pass on this anecdote, while it’s fresh in my mind.
My sister Alice works for a doctor who has become enamored of hi-tech gadgets; so he acquired some kind of computerized dictaphone to take his notes. Part of Alice’s job is to listen to the blather on the dictaphone and try to decipher it.
At a certain juncture, the doctor spoke into the dictaphone, “I told the patient to see Alice.” The computer recorded it as “I told the patient to Cialis.”
Cialis is an erectile dysfunction drug. The patient does not have erectile dysfunction. What the patient needs is another doctor–preferably one who doesn’t rely on a computerized dictaphone.
It could be worse. He could be a general giving orders to our missile system. Betcha the computer would have a lot of fun with that [cue to Terminator music].
Warning: The article from the UK Sun contains material that can only be described as disgusting. Read at your own risk.
Hey! People are “already making love to sex robots”–merciful heaven, is that what they call it?–and robots will soon be able to “surpass” human beings in everything, and will “awaken” by 2035 and soon acquire full civil rights as if they were human… so by 2045, the stage will be set for humans to “marry” androids (https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/6366262/marry-robots-sophia-harmony-hanson-2045/).
It’s all in a paper by some kook of a scientist, released in conjunction with (oh, please) a video game.
“How would you like to be married to a hyper-intelligent hybrid?” asks the “news” article. Gee, would that mean I had totally lost the ability to relate to another human being?
Ever get the impression you took a wrong turn somewhere, and wound up in Oz? In any discussion of “Artificial Intelligence,” the key word, the word that really matters, is “Artificial.” Not real! A mere simulation of reality! And it will not be more “intelligent” than we are, although it could easily turn out to be just as bleeding stupid.
A chess computer is held to be “good at chess,” for instance, A) because it has been programmed by experts who are real chess masters, B) because it’s a machine, an opponent cannot attack its psychology: it has no psychology, C) it can do chess calculations at lightning speed, almost infallibly picking the best move out of hundreds of possibilities, and D) although it has no genuine insight into anything that happens on the chessboard, it is immune to weariness or boredom and able to repeat its staggering number of calculations every time the situation changes because the opponent has made another move. The chess computer can defeat human players because of those factors listed above. “Intelligence” has nothing to do with it!
Just try explaining that to some numbskull of a reporter.
At best, the quest for Artificial Intelligence is a waste of resources. At worst it is a folly; and a folly can turn around and bite you. Hard.
So who says Artificial Intelligence is really just artificial stupidity?
We received today a computer-generated reminder from Greetings.com that today is my third birthday. Wow, 65 years taken right off the top! Imagine if they could do that with your weight, too. I just can’t wait till we all have the ability to hook up our brains to a master computer somewhere and all of us be just as smart as whips. First our cars, then our missile defense system, and finally our brains.
The European Parliament has approved a draft proposal to grant “legal rights” to robots as “electronic persons” ( https://www.rt.com/viral/373450-robot-kill-switches-status/ ). It will also include “obligations” for robots to “make good any damage they may cause”–an obligation, by the way, which does not seem to apply to “asylum seekers” in Germany and France who have done a lot of damage which is not made good. But I digress.
Are they jiving us? I’m having a hard time believing this story. Take this quote, for instance:
“AI [Artificial Intelligence] developers will have to ensure their creations follow a set of rules that prohibit them from harming or allowing a human to come to harm through their inaction. AI can protect their own existence under the rules, if this does not harm any humans.” And just in case, it is proposed that a “kill switch” be added so that “any rogue robots can be turned off easily.”
Hold on a minute, there! Isn’t this “Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics”? In his 1942 short story, “Runaround,” science fiction great Isaac Asimov proposed “three laws,” which he applied to his stories about robots from then on and which were adopted by many other science fiction writers. I grew up reading those stories and novels, and I know those “laws” by heart.
One) A robot must not, by any action or inaction, cause or permit any human being to come to harm.
Two) A robot must obey all commands given to it by any human being, unless that would conflict with the First Law.
Three) A robot may do whatever it needs to do to protect its own existence, except when that would conflict with either the First or Second Law.
The robots in Asimov’s novels, like I, Robot, were almost indistinguishable from real human beings. The EU seems to be concerned that people may wind up confusing a robot’s simulation of human drives and emotions with the real thing. That could get kind of sticky.
And so the secular humanist God-playing project goes on and on, from one folly to the next. It is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, the sheep of his pasture–that’s what the Bible says (Psalm 100:3), and the secular whoopee crowd has a real problem with it.
As for me, I don’t see how people who don’t have all that much intelligence themselves can be so confident in their ability to create artificial intelligence in electronic persons.
Artificial Stupidity–yeah, I think they can manage that.