What Do You Think?<\/p>\n
Explore the ProCon debate<\/p>\n
Artificial general intelligence (AGI), or strong AI\u2014that is, artificial intelligence that aims to duplicate human intellectual<\/a> abilities\u2014remains controversial and out of reach. The difficulty of scaling up AI\u2019s modest achievements cannot be overstated.<\/p>\n However, this lack of progress may simply be testimony to the difficulty of AGI, not to its impossibility. Let us turn to the very idea<\/a> of AGI. Can a computer possibly think? The theoretical linguist Noam Chomsky<\/a> suggests that debating this question is pointless, for it is an essentially arbitrary decision whether to extend common usage of the word think to include machines. There is, Chomsky claims, no factual question as to whether any such decision is right or wrong\u2014just as there is no question as to whether our decision to say that airplanes fly is right, or our decision not to say that ships swim is wrong. However, this seems to oversimplify matters. The important question is, Could it ever be appropriate to say that computers think and, if so, what conditions must a computer satisfy in order to be so described?<\/p>\n Some authors offer the Turing test<\/a> as a definition of intelligence. However, the mathematician and logician Alan Turing<\/a> himself pointed out that a computer that ought to be described as intelligent might nevertheless fail his test if it were incapable of successfully imitating a human being<\/a>. For example, ChatGPT often invokes<\/a> its status as a large language model<\/a> and thus would be unlikely to pass the Turing test. If an intelligent entity can fail the test, then the test cannot function as a definition of intelligence. It is even questionable whether passing the test would actually show that a computer is intelligent, as the information theorist Claude Shannon<\/a> and the AI pioneer John McCarthy<\/a> pointed out in 1956. Shannon and McCarthy argued that, in principle, it is possible to design a machine<\/a> containing a complete set of canned responses to all the questions that an interrogator could possibly ask during the fixed time span of the test. Like PARRY, this machine would produce answers to the interviewer\u2019s questions by looking up appropriate responses in a giant table. This objection seems to show that, in principle, a system with no intelligence at all could pass the Turing test.<\/p>\n In fact, AI has no real definition of intelligence to offer, not even in the subhuman case. Rats<\/a> are intelligent, but what exactly must an artificial intelligence achieve before researchers can claim that it has reached rats\u2019 level of success? In the absence of a reasonably precise criterion<\/a> for when an artificial system counts as intelligent, there is no objective way of telling whether an AI research program has succeeded or failed. One result of AI\u2019s failure to produce a satisfactory criterion of intelligence is that, whenever researchers achieve one of AI\u2019s goals\u2014for example, a program that can hold a conversation like GPT or beat the world chess<\/a> champion like Deep Blue\u2014critics are able to say, \u201cThat\u2019s not intelligence!\u201d Marvin Minsky<\/a>\u2019s response to the problem of defining intelligence is to maintain\u2014like Turing before him\u2014that intelligence is simply our name for any problem-solving mental process that we do not yet<\/a> understand. Minsky likens intelligence to the concept of \u201cunexplored regions of Africa\u201d: it disappears as soon as we discover it.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"What Do You Think? Explore the ProCon debate Artificial general intelligence (AGI), or strong AI\u2014that is, artificial intelligence…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":7822,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[24,1673,25,6864,6863,6862],"class_list":{"0":"post-7821","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-ai","8":"tag-ai","9":"tag-article","10":"tag-artificial-intelligence","11":"tag-britannica","12":"tag-encyclopeadia","13":"tag-encyclopedia"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7821","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7821"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7821\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/7822"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7821"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7821"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7821"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}