Artificial intelligence as a result of human thoughtlessness

The longer I reflect on what artificial intelligence is, the more I become convinced that this concept is the result of either thoughtlessness on the part of some participants in the scientific process, or meaningful familiarization with the financial trough by others.

Watch out for my hands: I'm not a sharper, I'm just thinking.
')
What is artificial intelligence? Something artificial, while being likened to man, is it not?

If you answer: “So”, then you sign that a person is a set of certain natural algorithms that are accessible to understanding and reproduction. Repeat the process of thinking in a mechanical doll, that is, natural algorithms implemented in the human brain - the doll will become like a human being.

How, in this case, is artificial intelligence different from a non-intellectual mechanism: an android from some fantastic series from an excavator digging a ditch?

Nothing fundamental, because both operate on the basis of the algorithms embedded in them. Mechanisms always act in accordance with the algorithms embedded in them, they are so arranged.

I know, I know, there is a fundamental difference. Artificial intelligence must respond depending on the current state of affairs: when it sees mom, utter “mom”, and when it sees dad, utter “dad” - and the non-intellectual mechanism is damned if it sees a light bulb, it is important what program is running.

This, as we all know, is called feedback.

Here are a couple of definitions from Wikipedia:
Feedback in technology is a process that leads to the fact that the result of the functioning of any system affects the parameters on which the functioning of this system depends.
Feedback in cybernetics is the presence of circuit cycles in the unchanged part of the machine and conditional instructions in its variable part.

I don’t really like these definitions. I would say this: feedback is a change in the system depending on all its previous changes. Hearing behind the door: "Your mother came, the milk brought," a reasonable creature will open the door, but if a gray wolf turned out to be a wolf at the previous times, it will not open. The object of perception is one: someone who calls himself mom - but the reaction varies depending on previous experience.

It is the presence of feedback that artificial intelligence differs from “non-intellectual” mechanisms.

Is it difficult, such a feedback mechanism, to construct a mechanism? There is nothing easier.

Take a calculator. Is it artificial intelligence, that is, according to our definition, a mechanism operating on the principle of feedback? In no case! There is no feedback in it: you press buttons 2 * 3 and you get 6 as a result, regardless of the previous presses.

Slightly modify the program. Let's make sure that the actions are remembered and in the case of repetition the message "You have already asked." I click on the buttons 2 * 3 for the first time, I get 6. I click on the same buttons again, I get the message "You already asked."

This is artificial intelligence - of course, utterly simplistic, but very real. A reasonable reaction to the changed environment is evident - in full accordance with the algorithm incorporated in the mechanism, otherwise it can be done.

What follows from this? The fact that mechanisms with artificial intelligence, designed millions! Any database in which new data are alternately added and issued, in accordance with the changed content, the answers to the requests - this is artificial intelligence, implemented and functioning properly.

And you didn’t want that when you talked about artificial intelligence ?! What? Give you a human, to briefly exchange views on women's legs and the latest version of the operating system? Craving a conversation with an artificial being on free topics, that is?

Okay, imagine an automaton that answers your phrases in such a rigidly defined sequence: “Solar”, “Not less than you”, “Due to gravity”.

The first interlocutor comes up, says: “Hello.” The machine answers him: “Solar”. The interviewee is amazed: "What do you mean?". The machine answers: "Not less than you." And so on. It is unlikely that the interlocutor will come to the conclusion that he is dealing with an intelligent being.

The second interlocutor approaches, the situation repeats - the phrases vary, but the conclusion about the unreasonableness of the machine remains the same. This is repeated one hundred million times.

And now the first passer-by is approaching the automaton one hundred million and asks: “What is the weather now?”. Automatic answers: "Solar". Wai-wai, and the weather is really sunny! Pleasantly surprised counterpart continues to cry out: "Are you a reasonable creature?". The machine answers: "Not less than you." The almost confident interlocutor throws the third test phrase: “Why do objects fall down?”. The machine responds: "Due to gravity." Case in a hat, one hundred million first interlocutor is convinced of the reasonableness of the machine.

Alas, despite the successful completion of the Turing test, such a talking automaton is no different from a doll, able to pronounce only "mom, dad" - unless the vocabulary.

But let's imagine that the program of the talking automat is complicated: it implements the principle of feedback and the lexicon is extended by several orders, as a result, it became really possible to discuss the women's legs and the latest version of the operating system. The machine is trained to respond to keywords and give an answer that is acceptable for the interlocutor.

Difficulties in the implementation of such an automaton are possible due to the weak formalization of natural languages ​​and insufficient system resources, but not more. Such systems are darkness, and so what? Thanks to the feedback, the machine “intelligently” responds to the repeated question with the phrase: “Excuse me, you have already asked!”, While continuing to act in accordance with the algorithms embedded in it, as without them.

We will ask ourselves and we will answer:

• Will the talking automaton circuit be more complicated than the modified calculator circuit? Yes, definitely.
• Will the talking automaton be more intelligent than the modified calculator? No, but why on earth ?! An elephant with extravagant size is not a mammal more than a field mouse.

The funny thing is that a talking automaton is not fundamentally different even from a person who, according to our agreement, is a collection of natural algorithms. Or do you not agree? A person is a set of algorithms, a modified calculator is also a set of algorithms, therefore, a person and a modified calculator are close relatives in mind. They themselves wanted artificial intelligence, get the result of their rash desire: the recognition that man is a mechanism.

Let us suppose that this does not scare you, you persist: yes, man is a natural mechanism, but give us such an artificial mechanism so that it resembles a human one in complexity and reactions.

Let me ask you: why, in fact, why did you give up such a mechanism, since there is nothing in it except complexity and “human” reactions? For the Nobel Ponte? But you do not want to construct an automatic machine, jumping over rough terrain on one leg and at the same time juggling ten tennis balls? I think this is no less fascinating thing than creating a humanoid robot. And if such an automaton during juggling starts to bake pancakes with jam, in general a non-standard technical task will work out. Only who will need such a unique one?

Okay, suppose you persuaded me. Let artificial intelligence - a mechanism that simulates human behavior, while comparable in complexity to human.

In this case, artificial intelligence is an artificial person, nothing else. Not any artificial intelligence, but it is like a person.

What follows from this? But let's go through the points.

For some reason it seems to me that it is possible to imitate human behavior only on the basis of the same basic data with which a person operates. This means that the receptors of an artificial person must perceive the same external world as we do, otherwise there will be an inevitable discrepancy in perceptions and, as a result, in behavior (an argument for supporters of the computer mind, believing that you can recreate anything in the computer environment. Hardly Until the digital nature of human thinking is proven, sorry, I’m going to have to use analog).

In this regard, the question arises: how is it possible to ensure the identity of perception, which an artificial person possesses, to natural human perception?

It is believed that a person has five senses. Vision and hearing are imitated in technology for a long time and everywhere, with the rest - trouble. Devices that allow you to record and play tactile, taste and olfactory sensations, not invented - at least in stores they are not sold. So, the sensations of an artificial person will be in comparison with the natural human perceptions insufficient, flawed.

Not scary - they will object to me. - You can use the biological element base, constructing an artificial person from the same material as the natural one. In any case, the identity of perceptions will be ensured.

But how? Stitching from corpse parts - ay, Dr. Frankenstein! - or according to the method of Professor Preobrazhensky? .. Who, however, disavowed his own achievements by confessing:
“You can graft Spinoza's pituitary gland or some other such devil and build an extremely high standing dog. But what the devil? - it is asked. Explain to me, please, why it is necessary to fabricate Spinoz artificially when any woman can give birth to him at any time. ”

The difficulty is not even in one way or another to build some kind of biological creature, but in recognizing it as an artificial person. Is a clone grown out of a cage an artificial or natural person? They grew up, one might say, artificially, but they didn’t put in man-made algorithms inward - that is, natural?

And if on the contrary: grown naturally, but programmed artificially?

In this case, we are all robots, because all of us have been programmed by certain life circumstances, including artificially initiated ones, such as the mass media. Modern media and are designed to be programmed! From this point of view, it is not necessary to assemble an artificial person from parts, whether mechanical or biological, a rather short exposure to the zombie box, after which the natural person becomes an artificial monster.

What do we get? In the case of a mechanical element base, the achievement of human perceptions is problematic, in the case of a biological base, the recognition of the creature as artificial is problematic and it is not at all clear what to consider the criterion of artificiality: the element base or the successful artificial reprogramming of the subject.

These are flowers in comparison with the problem that arises when you try to fill an artificial human processor with information that fits in the human brain!

From what age is a citizen considered in civilized countries capable? Since 18 years old? Do not you think that during this period you will have to train an artificial person of life, just so parents teach a small child? You do not hope that the creation of your hands for the night will connect to the Internet, but in the morning will know the mysteries of the Universe? If you hope, try doing the same thing with your monthly son: the chances that by the morning the child will turn into an omniscient professor are exactly the same. But this is the almighty Nature, which we are just trying to imitate - human skills look less preferable!

Hello, how do you feel about the construction of an artificial person (an automatic machine jumping on one leg, at the same time juggling ten tennis balls and baking jam with jam) for twenty years of hard work, and for forty years filling the processor box with information necessary for achieve a mechanism of human similarity? Sorry, I did not hear the answer ...

Yes, yes, you rightly suspect: I suppose the Turing test is a logically illiterate construction (a reasonable machine is considered to be such a machine that we considered reasonable - as I myself didn’t guess!), I think expensive projects on the study of the brain in order to create artificial intelligence with ordinary budget cutting ( that we did not see cuts, or what?!), etc.

This is the time to finish.

The summary will be as follows:

• Creating artificial intelligence is not difficult: the implementation is achieved through feedback. The number of artificial intelligence systems implemented is incalculable.
• Imitation of a person in artificial intelligence - that which provides food to countless speculation about the uprisings of cars and other sci-fi crap - has no reason. There will be no uprisings for either human-like computers, or angry excavators, unless they are properly programmed.

But this is in one case: if you recognize a person as a combination of certain natural algorithms that are accessible to understanding, then this is where the conversation began. You know, I have a different opinion.

The inherent ability of each person to comprehend himself testifies to the duality of our essence: man is not only a body acting according to the laws of biological mechanics, but also what is commonly referred to as the soul — the observation point located outside the physical body. Being a point of observation, the soul cannot know its own device, approximately for the reason that the eye cannot see itself except in the mirror. There is no mirror for the soul, so it cannot be copied in a mechanical device. How to copy what you have no idea about?

The error lay at the very beginning of our reasoning: that a person is a combination of natural algorithms that can be studied and reproduced artificially. And here and there: no man is something unknowable, so any copy of it will always be partial and never complete! Reproduce bodily reactions - no problem (at least at the level of selection of the humanoid reactions expected from the robot), but the human soul ...

In connection with the transition to the philosophical path, I will round off: they do not like it here.

Dixi et animam levavi, as the Latins would say.