Day: April 3, 2019

Unlocking Artificial Intelligence

 

Research into A.I. has to some degree surpassed human calculating capacity. Problem solving with speed and accuracy has enabled computing power sufficient for computers to beat world champions at Chess and Go, and can even compete with professionals at games like Poker. However clever and able robots with state of the art artificial intelligence may get, their human creator’s are going to struggle to move them into areas which make humans humane. They may in the future begin to perceive the world around them as we do, even though this is a vast problem to solve. And solving it could create a nightmare scenario.

 

Another great problem is human motility. Compare a ballet dancer or a gymnast to a robot and they are seemingly far apart in ability. However much greater are those areas of human behaviour which are most important to us: love, consciousness, self awareness, empathy, value and belief systems, the aesthetic appreciation of beauty and so on. About some of these science is still in the dark ages of understanding.

Just take one of the above: holding a value or belief. These can be so strong that a person may be prepared to sacrifice their life. A human being is designed to look after itself, and yet it is capable of self sacrifice, giving up its own self interest entirely. Humans will voluntarily get together to risk their lives for others, doctors, police, mountain rescue teams, firefighters, RNLI, the list could go on and on. An A.I. could be programmed to do such things, but placing a value system in a robot could lead to a million pound artificial human committing suicide because it had failed to do some small task properly; like pouring a teaspoonful of sugar into a cup and stirring an invalid patient’s tea. This is its reason to exist, to keep the patient happy, and it has failed. Given a simple conscience this machine could breakdown. If it could feel any depth of shame it might seek to end its existence. A value system is extremely difficult to moderate. How much value do we place on a thing or an objective or an idea. A.I. is admittedly a marvel of invention. A project which has consumed vast amounts of finance, ingenuity and computing power to make them operate as they do; but they are still nothing close to even mimicking humanity. I am not suggesting this is a primary aim, but it gets close to it. Its imaginary fulfilment is conjured up in the film industry in multiple forms, some good, some bad, so positively evil. Who knows what may happen. A competition is certainly on to beat humans in areas where A.I. has the potential to do so.

The complexity involved in creating an artificial human is immense. And yet what about considering the model upon which AI is being developed? My point is this, if the most intelligent of the most intelligent species on earth has over the last seventy years got this far, and is still on the lower slopes of Everest in replicating something even remotely close to fully human, then what kind of intelligence produced ordinary examples of this phenomena like you and I?

Lego Logic

 

Much of this website is concerned with questions: Logical or Illogical, God or no God, Creator or no Creator, Design or no Design. Normal or Abnormal, Natural or Unnatural, Good or Bad, Wise or Unwise, Progressive or Regressive, True or False, Possible or Impossible and so on, and on…

Logical thinking is to think on the basis of knowledge, what we know, and certainties, what we can prove. A Lego brick is a designed object and as soon as you look at it you realise by its structure that it is intended to be linked to other pieces similarly designed. If it is bought new from a toy shop you will get it in a box, and inside a selection of Lego parts wrapped in a clear plastic packet. On opening this you discover an instruction leaflet telling you how to put the pieces together, to make the object illustrated on the box: the truck and trailer. The instructions are the key to building the object accurately, leaving no spare pieces over.

From all that information you deduce not only that every part has been  designed, but designed for a purpose. It is on display to entice a prospective customer, provide an income for the Lego corporation and pleasure to the child who receives it. We all understand these principles very well; most of us have at some time in our lives been involved at every level of this process. We apply parts of this logic in one way or another most days of our lives, even if it is as mundane as going to Costa or Starbucks to have a sit down and a cup of coffee. You can take any point in this process and work logically to prove that thought and design and purpose are always apparent. Even the young child is aware that the truck was intended to be played with. He or she might get this wrong and think a power drill was made for the same purpose, but would be correct in thinking it exists to fulfil a purpose. This intuition is increased when the instruction leaflet which makes sense of the many apparently random pieces is opened. We now know for sure that these will combine to make a three dimensional truck and trailer identical to the illustration on the box. All of that should convince even the greatest of sceptics that it was designed. Obvious?  In the case of the Lego yes, but not necessarily so in all cases. Most people in the Western World have been taught to make an illogical exception to this universal rule. To think that you and I, who also came with a specified instruction code called DNA, somehow arose from a process of purposeless chance, guided by nothing more that a hit or miss process called natural selection. For all these reasons to argue that design was not a vital component of everything that exists is counter intuitive. It is difficult in nature to find a single thing which is pointless or without function.

Below is a brilliantly conceived counter argument to designed by God or gods, from Carl Sagan. It is so well done that I can both applaud it and reject it with complete peace of mind. Nonsense in the face of evidence does not become sense just because it is well wrapped, clever and beautifully delivered by an expert. It sounds good while it skims over the surface of what is known about God, science, design, morality, consciousness and nature.

There is one comment of Sagan which I totally agree with: “We have a talent for deceiving ourselves.”

There is a truth that even Sagan might have admitted. Not one of us has a greater need to deceive ourself than an atheist who has taken an intellectual punt on their being no Designer or Creator of the Universe, the Earth and You and I.