Is there intelligence in modern Artificial Intelligence?

This is far from an idle and not at all rhetorical question. Worked on the creation of AI, and now tens of thousands of scientifically-graduated figures are piling up all over the world, an uncountable number of various research developers with absolutely no degree coding in countless "IT" companies, and even a mass of simply ambitious enthusiasts who rarely leave home. Over the past half century, many dissertations, monographs, and articles have been written on this subject, and a wide variety of robots and computer programs have been created in this area, claiming, as their authors claim, to be “intellectual”. However, the desired intelligence that we have been waiting for so long from all these theories and applied approbations, to our disappointment, is practically not visible.

How so - you can be puzzled - so much effort and what, all for nothing? To understand this and understand the underlying causes of the failures, let's try to use the methodology of system analysis and technotronic terminology, according to which the "intelligence" of a system is understood as the technology of its behavior. So, if we consider human behavior as a “natural-intellectual” being, in this aspect, it turns out that the basis of human behavior is determined not by one, but exactly two technologies, which we will arbitrarily call as: Technology “Mind” (TP) and Technology "Reason" (TR).

The essence of their differences lies in the fact that TP, whether it is inherent in a person or an animal, is based on reflex-program reactions that occur in response to signals and / or influences from the outside world. This technology is perfectly implemented in cybernetics and its machine tool - a computer.

But the TR is already based on the analysis of environmental disturbances (changes in the environment) around the individual and on his decision on the need for one or another motivated response based on the analytical results obtained by himself. And this is done on the basis of the knowledge and experience gained by a reasonable individual.

It is known that in TP one single conditional operator is used for analysis: “If A = X, then do Y, otherwise execute Z”. And in TR there are eight of them at once, the main of which are the so-called “urine” and “position” operators. But a computer or even an animal, whose intelligence is based on only one conditional operator, is not at all interested in why this [A] should be equal to [X], and whether [A] can be equal to [X], and why it should be done [Y ] and all the more to do [Z], but the human "Reason", on the contrary, is engaged in just this very thing, asking various "earthen" questions and trying to find any ontological answers to them. That is, for “intelligent technologies” it is not natural to evaluate a two-digit situation, but a multi-valued situation.

If now we look from the ideas presented above on specialists involved in the development and creation of AI, as well as on what they are doing in real life, it turns out that they are all busy absolutely on creating something of this, perhaps even very interesting , but exclusively within the framework of "psychic technology", and by no means in the field of "Reason."

Why is this happening? Because of what, in fact, TR does not develop, and what are the difficulties here? It turns out that the answer to this question can only be found by studying and knowing such a phantom as “the procedural nature of human thinking”, and this thing is very incomprehensible to linguists and cybernetics, and the physiologists and brain experts have not really succeeded in this direction.

Brainetics should have been responsible for everything here, as a scientific discipline that studies the algorithms of mental activity. It was her responsibility to give software developers the necessary tool for understanding the text or for understanding the context in order to cognize knowledge, which, in fact, cannot be done by computer linguistics (compiling) in its modern form, since it is simply outside the scope of its competence. But brainetics, unfortunately, has long remained a cinderella among linguistics in the scientific community and is only just now beginning to gain the necessary strength and weight, gradually turning into a princess and occupying the status assigned to her in solving the problem of creating a real, and not a surrogate AI.

Why exactly brainetics, and not computer linguistics at all, can help in the creation of Artificial Intelligence? And exactly for the following reason. Natural intelligence, acting as a system of “reasonable behavior”, necessarily uses knowledge of the world around us, building in its natural consciousness a certain model of the universe to navigate in it. “Mental robots” that do not have such a consciousness do not know how to do this at all, since there is no place in computing for either knowledge or, especially, a model of the universe. Cybernetics with linguists just do not yet know how this can be created in machine standards, and therefore operate on data alone. Operations with knowledge are for them excessive aerobatics. Well, and if there is no knowledge, then there is no “rational intelligence”.

Also popular now: