John Robb has started a weblog on the singularity. It starts with the Kurzweil link I had a week or so ago (which didn't get the best reviews) but goes on from there in at least a more personal way (whereas the Kurzweil site does seem a bit self promoting in an obviously money-making way.) In any case today he is discussing A.I. vs. I.A. ("Individual Augmentation"). Not really enough stuff yet to judge, but looks promising. (via Hack the Planet)
Paul Snively has some comments on this at HTP.
My own opinion on this is pretty straightforward. I think that the whole notion of starting from the idea that we have any idea what human intelligence is at this point is probably flawed. I think "human" intelligence has always already been entangled with technology, and that it is not clear at this point what it is. It is still coming into being. As we build more and more sophisticated technological devices, we humans end up assimilating the technology (or at least certain features of the technology) into ourselves. So the technology is becoming more "human," but at the same time "humans" (whatever they are) are becoming more like their (our) technology. When (or if) we finally build a machine that is considered to have human intelligence, this will be the same act as humans finally putting a definitive notion to the question of what is human intelligence?
Or, in other words, the goal of building an artificial intelligence can be seen as just the intellectual process of debating what exactly human intelligence is. If anyone suceeds in building an aritificial intelligence that seems "obviously" human-like, then this will just be the winning argument in the debate about what really defines human intelligence. But at this point we don't know.
Blah, blah, blah...
Only thing intelligent & intelligible
about humans is & always will be
words the rest is the mystery best left
to reverence. Why this truth is so
meager to the hungry minds of boys
I sorely understand.
|
- jim 6-07-2001 8:54 pm
Paul Snively has some comments on this at HTP.
My own opinion on this is pretty straightforward. I think that the whole notion of starting from the idea that we have any idea what human intelligence is at this point is probably flawed. I think "human" intelligence has always already been entangled with technology, and that it is not clear at this point what it is. It is still coming into being. As we build more and more sophisticated technological devices, we humans end up assimilating the technology (or at least certain features of the technology) into ourselves. So the technology is becoming more "human," but at the same time "humans" (whatever they are) are becoming more like their (our) technology. When (or if) we finally build a machine that is considered to have human intelligence, this will be the same act as humans finally putting a definitive notion to the question of what is human intelligence?
Or, in other words, the goal of building an artificial intelligence can be seen as just the intellectual process of debating what exactly human intelligence is. If anyone suceeds in building an aritificial intelligence that seems "obviously" human-like, then this will just be the winning argument in the debate about what really defines human intelligence. But at this point we don't know.
Blah, blah, blah...
- jim 6-07-2001 9:23 pm
Only thing intelligent & intelligible
about humans is & always will be
words the rest is the mystery best left
to reverence. Why this truth is so
meager to the hungry minds of boys
I sorely understand.
- frank 6-08-2001 9:19 pm