Computer Consciousness

I've long doubted the idea that computers can be "intelligent" in the way that human beings are intelligent. Perhaps a better way to say this is that I've long been a skeptic of the potential of Artificial Intelligence. For one, I've yet to observe anything remotely like artificial intelligence occurring inside a processor or wrapped up in an algorithm or acted out by a machine. What I have observed is something that I think is more accurately described as "human intelligence applied artificially", or HIAA (let's pronounce it "Hiya!"). In fact, personally, I haven't seen anything but HIAA where others see AI (let's pronounce that "Aieee!"). If you know of any "Aieee!" that isn't better described as "Hiya!", then please let me know.

The problem, as I see it, is what I call the "Wizard of Oz syndrome" that lies behind people's hopes for AI. Whenever a new breakthrough in the AI field is celebrated, we are expected to be dazzled by the new model, all the while pretending there isn't a modeler standing behind it. In fact, suspending the connection between the model and the modeler is required if you want to get really excited about the long-range prospects of AI.

Let me explain with a thought experiment on a very inflammatory subject: evolution. Some years ago a scientist at a top university (MIT, I think) demonstrated with a computer and something like a motorized Lego set that the process of evolution could be modeled by computer. The computer started by creating the simplest Lego-type objects (life-forms) and those objects increased (or at least changed) in complexity and capability as the computer processed environmental feedback. The results were touted around the world as "near-proof" that evolution theory can, in fact, explain life as it exists today. I had to laugh, because this was instead "near-proof" of the opposite: that given a sufficiently intelligent modeler, a model can be created that makes things look like they're happening randomly. The scientist forgot to include himself as an element of the experiment. His conclusion was that, given an ever-improved model, an increasingly-improved replica of evolution could be demonstrated. However, if the scientist had taken himself into account, a very different conclusion would have been required: as his own intelligence approached perfection, the outcome of his experiment would appear to be a perfect demonstration of evolution without an intelligent cause. The "without an intelligent cause" part is ironic, no? In reality, that scientist, by being an inseparable part of the experiment, did a better job of demonstrating a theory of God than he did a theory of evolution. This, my friends, is what I mean when I say that AI true-believers suffer from Wizard of Oz syndrome. They just don't want to look behind the curtain.