Writing Decoding World History, a successor to World History and the Eonic Effect, has brought me to realize that I stumbled into issues of artificial intelligence but with a cautionary reluctance, to evade the hype there.
The sudden take-off of AI is significant indeed but despite avid interest I am stuck in some old-fashioned skepticism about claims here.
My point is that while I share the enthusiastic interest in ‘artificial intelligence’, my work on world history has shown me the real thing in action, and the results so far are way ahead of AI.
We seek superintelligent machines but the eonic effect suggests we have already interacted with something like that in history, and that much of world history is system generated, an exciting and depressing thought. We called that evolution and our take on that subject is far indeed from Darwinism.
I find this new advance and/or fad interesting but I have to wonder if the subject has a proper foundation. Hey, it happens. Evolution got a wrong foundation at its start.
What is intelligent? I have yet to meet a hyperintelligent nerd who could figure out the flaw in Darwinism. Fred Hoyle is apparently the last one.
It is not clear what is meant by intelligence: the issue of consciousness may or may to be essential to the definition. But intelligent machines still lack intelligence and the abuse of the Turing Test to assess consciousness is strangely wrong and stupid.
I recommend a look at the eonic effect: a seeming superintelligent mechanics seems to stand behind human historical evolution.
The requirements of intelligence are bad enough, superintelligence, who knows.
But I don’t see how AI is going to resolve intelligence.
This field has made zero progress with real intelligence, i.e. esthetic and ethical issues, to start and several dozen more questions.
Can Ai come to resolve the issue of capitalism versus socialism? These hyped up innovators are usually capitalist fanatics on the way to their startup.
… can AI compose poetry, do philosophy, invent novelties, prove and discover theorems of math, debate any subject, etc…etc… The poetry of AI is not poetry, why not?
When I got my first computer years ago I had the passing thought: this machine is intelligent, but the feeling passed as the very useful mechanism at hand proved intelligent/dumb. Very dumb, and not conscious. I recently signed up for a trial of Grammerly, no doubt a creature of AI. Fascinating and very useful for a tired blogger trying to not type gibberish at 5am over coffee, and its ‘logic’ is often surprising, But its mistakes are also revealing. It seems very smart about English, but then makes an uncromprehending mistake: the sudden perception is, doesn’t understand a word of English. That seems to be the same kind of feeling induced by AI at a higher level. So I am not yet a Luddite here, but…
Whatever the case, my basic point is that these machines might seem intelligent, but they have not resolved the question of consciousness, and are therefore not intelligent at all…