Is it possible to create artificial intelligence?


Mankind has been dreaming of artificial intelligence for centuries. It seems a little more, and the cherished goal will be achieved, but you should ask yourself: is it possible to solve this problem in principle? What is artificial intelligence that must finally equate a person with God?
Let me express my own - I hope, different from the usual - opinion.

As a rule, artificial intelligence is identified with the human mind, that is, we are talking about creating an artificial person. In this case, it’s good to understand what a natural person is who is proposed to produce artificially.
What is a person - the most ordinary, so to speak, natural?
It exists on two levels, indisputable for any (both scientific and ordinary practical) perception:

  • at the level of matter
  • at the level of the mind, which is supposed to be artificially reproduced. The brain enclosed in the skull is quite material, but the mind is something else, qualitatively different from matter. It's hard to argue with that.

Since the task of creating artificial intelligence is of an informational nature, it is correct to declare both levels of human existence as information systems in such a plane and consider the problem. The first information system is the material world surrounding us, the second information system is the human mind. It should be noted right away that these systems do not correlate with each other. And why should they relate? What could be the correspondence between the material medium and the information recorded on it? That's right, no.
When knowing the world around us, a person - his knowing "I" - is outside the knowable, in another information system. You can learn something exclusively external, and not internal, do not you find? Try to track the movement of neurons in your brain when you try to track the movement of neurons in your brain when you try to track the movement of neurons in your brain ... and so on to infinity. In an alien brain, that is, in a region external to the mind, this is entirely conceivable, but not in the brain with its own neurons, which makes thinking possible. Therefore, I say that cognition is an external function: as applied to another information system, it is possible in principle, but as applied to one's own information system (the one in which the cognitive "I" of the subject is located) is by no means possible.
I will try to illustrate the statement with a good example.
Suppose green people landed on our planet, quite peaceful and sociable. The runaway mankind asks them different questions, and the green men reasonably and in detail answer, to the joy of those gathered. Are space guests intelligent beings? Without a doubt, are! How bitter the disappointment of the crowd is when it turns out that sociable green men are not at all rational creatures, but biorobots, acting on the basis of their program, or even directly in real time, according to direct instructions from the direct owners. Who, then, is reasonable? What kind of question - of course, those guys from Proxima Centauri, where the control signal comes from to the green biorobots! Suppose, let’s say ... But what if the signal from Proxima Centauri is sent by other, more advanced, mechanical control devices? Can you imagine that? Why not ?! Who, then, are sentient beings? Those who made not only green men, but also control transmitters from Proxima Centauri, of course. Well and so on, if you understand the logic applied ... As you can see, the question of the reasonableness of space guests directly depends on our knowledge in this matter - more precisely, on what we consider to be an “extreme” information system:

  • consider the “extreme” brain of green men - means that green men are intelligent creatures;
  • we find out that the “brain” of green men is a device that receives signals from Proxima Centauri - oh yes, but here it’s completely clear, real intelligent beings are on Proxima Centauri;
  • ah, on Proxima Centauri only control transmitters, you say? - Well then, intelligent creatures are somewhere in the distance, did someone make these control transmitters?

Find a suitable information system external to the one in question, and the concept of reason will immediately move there. Is it not too vague for a concept to be implemented as an operating mechanism?
Do you still think that the human mind exists? Based on a strong belief and personal sense of self? And bring some evidence that you yourself are not a green man, that is, a biological machine that is not controlled by someone from the outside? What are your reasons to consider yourself a rational being, in fact? The self-awareness of rationality is not proof: it is entirely conceivable that the real creator programmed you with a similar sense of self for the very purpose that you would not have guessed anything. The situation, repeatedly beaten in the cinema: a robot that considers itself a human being. Just an assumption about an external information system, and there is no trace left of your rationality!
What is reason in this case? The trivial ability to respond to signals. Man in a certain way reacts to signals, therefore, he is intelligent. The iron is equally reasonable: I plug the plug into a power outlet, and imagine, the iron starts to heat up - isn't that what a highly organized mind shows up in? Ah, the iron is designed to heat up when the plug is inserted into the outlet ?! So, after all, a person is arranged in a certain way: if he touches a hot iron, he will yank his hand away with a cry - on this side his reaction is as predictable as the reaction of the iron when it is turned on. And the fact that the device of the iron is known, and the device of the human brain - is not very good yet, does not prove the qualitative difference of some reactions from others, that is, it does not prove the superiority of man over the iron.
Since humanity certainly wants to produce an artificial person, let us analyze how the artificial mind can differ from the natural, human?

1. Humanity.
In cinema, robots usually have forms close to human ones, but this is not necessary when creating an artificial mind. Let the iron, if only the iron is thinking - enough to solve our problem.

2. The complexity.
The device of man is undoubtedly more complicated than the device of iron. Although the iron is not the most difficult of the inventions of mankind: some of the modern machines are comparable in terms of complexity to the human brain, at least in the sense that they are beyond the scope of understanding of the average man in the street.
Generally accepted.

3. The ability to self-development.
Fully programmable ability: it is enough to take into account all previous signals and own reactions in the algorithms - in other words, be based on past experience.

4. Unpredictability.
Man, due to the complexity of his device, is more unpredictable than an iron. More - because the iron is also not always predictable: for example, after plugging the plug into the outlet, it may not turn on (due to a breakdown), but it may crack or catch fire (due to a more serious malfunction). Of course, the list of possible reactions of the iron to the outlet is limited, but the list of human reactions is also too: if you step on your foot, most likely, the culprit will apologize or remain silent - it is extremely unlikely that he will smile at you two hundred and fifty times, then wave his ears and swoop in the sky.
However, making artificial intelligence unpredictably human is not difficult: you just need to insert a random number generator into the algorithm.

5. Simplifying or complicating?
The material from which artificial intelligence is created can be any, not necessarily biological. But it can be biological. In this case, a side question arises: how active should be the participation in the biological, essentially natural, process of the builder of artificial intelligence? Should a scientist borrow a living cell from nature and grow an artificial mind from it, or for this to be considered fully artificial, it is necessary to modify a living cell taken from nature, or can a scientist use ready-made cell blocks to create artificial intelligence?
Suppose, the creator of artificial intelligence, following the example of Frankenstein, finds a pair of dead corpses, amputates the left hemisphere in the first corpse, the right hemisphere in the second corpse, then connects the hemisphere and gets a functioning brain? Does this brain, made up of the hemispheres of different people, have artificial or natural intelligence? If natural, where is the line between artificial and natural? And if a scientist took a single cell from the brain and grew a whole brain from it, would the grown mind be artificial and natural? .. If the answer is no, if the connection of the left and right hemispheres gives an artificial brain ... then in general the devil knows what happens, you know . It turns out, it is enough to remove one cell from the natural brain, as the brain becomes artificial. That is, it’s not the methods that the scientist uses,

  • when the mind changes as a result of the actions of a scientist (in fact, as a result of the influence of external factors, even minimal ones) - artificial intelligence;
  • mind in its original state is natural.

Why then surgery? Enough external stimuli that allow you to change the mind in the desired direction! I hint at the media that manipulate the moral and ethical representations of humanity without any scalpel. From this point of view, the viewer adhered to the zombie possesses much like an artificial mind - a product of high technology. Such a viewer is a biorobot, like the green men mentioned above. Strictly speaking, any interhuman communication leads to a change in the intelligence of the communicating parties - however, in contrast to the situation with the zombie, bilateral and, in this sense, equal.
What do I want to say? The fact that when you try to create a thinking robot, you should decide on the methods for achieving the goal: we want to create simple from complex or simple from simple. If in order to create an artificial mind it is enough to simplify or stop the development of a person’s natural mind, the task of creating an artificial mind has been solved for a long time and reliably.

6. The soul.
Often in conversations about artificial intelligence they appeal to the soul: say, you try to create a thinking machine with a human soul, then ... Well, it depends on what you mean by the soul: if some psychophysical features (psycho - in the sense of reaction to external stimuli, physical - in sense of a physical device), then the technique has all of these qualities. Each device has its own device, almost always with individual characteristics: on this side, typical devices are no different from people tailored to a single pattern, but at the same time they are purely individual. As for the psycho-features, that is, reactions to external stimuli ... Just don’t tell me that the devices do not have psychophysical features. About twenty years ago I had a home-made computer connected to a TV, so this freak often could not read a floppy disk (then there were five-inch ones). You sit down to such a computer and you never know whether you can play Tetris or not. In short, this electronic bastard was in the mood. It took decades of corporate training so that his descendants, little resembling a makeshift ancestor, learned to function stably. Although the burrows of technical devices, even the latest ones, still appear from time to time ... And you say that technology has no psychophysical features! learned to function stably. Although the burrows of technical devices, even the latest ones, still appear from time to time ... And you say that technology has no psychophysical features! learned to function stably. Although the burrows of technical devices, even the latest ones, still appear from time to time ... And you say that technology has no psychophysical features!

7. Full human copy.
Adherents of artificial intelligence may require a complete copy of a person, that is, a person in the flesh.
We ask them: what, aren't people reproducing themselves, that is, not being copied by other people? What does it mean “artificially”? Usually, this word means: created by man. However, babies are not made in heaven, but by humans, albeit in the order prescribed by God: in this sense, a natural child will not differ from an artificial one any more than a part manufactured on a conveyor with observance of safety rules, from a part made manually without observing safety rules . Suppose a locksmith tried and manually blinded no worse. But was it worth it if the result is indistinguishable from the conveyor ?! Absolutely according to Professor Preobrazhensky, isn't it?“Please explain to me why you need to artificially fabricate Spinoz, when any woman can give birth to him anytime. After all, she gave birth to Madame Lomonosov in Kholmogory, this famous one. Doctor, humanity itself takes care of this and in an evolutionary order every year stubbornly, isolating from the mass of all scum, creates dozens of outstanding geniuses that adorn the globe. "
By the way, does a human clone have artificial or natural intelligence?

No, as you want, but in the very concept of “artificial intelligence” lies a contradiction. When we say “reason”, we mean our own human mind, which, by virtue of our natural essence, is an information system that is extremely personal for us. We cannot recognize the structure of our own brain: we can know the structure of another person’s brain, although this knowledge will not be absolutely convincing for us. I remember when I was a child I was very surprised when I had an X-ray of a dislocated wrist, and it became clear that there were bones under the skin. I was sure that the device of my hand is not like everyone else ... Artificial reason because the reason that there is nothing from the outside: no external information system that defines it. On the other hand, “artificial” implies - we have also created. However, how can something be done, not understanding his device? This method coincides with the above-mentioned natural fertility. It is possible, of course, to construct artificial intelligence from individual blocks, the device of which is unknown to us. This is similar to combining hemispheres amputated in different people into a single brain - I considered this option. And to assemble artificial intelligence from the simplest parts and at the same time not understand the assembly order ... I assure you, this is by no means impossible. Or you have to derive the resulting design from its own information field. For example, a father starts a mechanical teddy bear with a key, which appears to be alive for his child. But the father himself does not perceive the toy bear alive: having knowledge of an adult, he simply cannot - unless, of course, he is thirty years younger. Not,
What do we get in the end? And here's what: talk of creating artificial intelligence is not correct. But if we mean by a thinking artificial being a human-like machine with complex and not quite predictable reactions resembling human ones, then, of course, artificial intelligence can be created. True, such devices are not quite pragmatic: specialized mechanisms designed for ironing clothes, transporting people, transmitting information, etc. have a better future. Thinking irons, in short.

Also popular now: