Computer pioneer Alan Turing’s remarks in 1950 on the question, “Can machines think?” were misquoted, misinterpreted and morphed into the so-called “Turing Test”. The modern version says if you can’t tell the difference between communicating with a machine and a human, the machine is intelligent. What Turing actually said was that by the year 2000 people would be using words like “thinking” and “intelligent” to describe computers, because interacting with them would be so similar to interacting with people. Computer scientists do not sit down and say alrighty, let’s put this new software to the Turing Test - by Grabthar’s Hammer, it passed! We’ve achieved Artificial Intelligence!
I think the Chinese room argument published in 1980 gives a pretty convincing reason why the Turing test doesn’t demonstrate intelligence.
The thought experiment starts by placing a computer that can perfectly converse in Chinese in one room, and a human that only knows English in another, with a door separating them. Chinese characters are written and placed on a piece of paper underneath the door, and the computer can reply fluently, slipping the reply underneath the door. The human is then given English instructions which replicate the instructions and function of the computer program to converse in Chinese. The human follows the instructions and the two rooms can perfectly communicate in Chinese, but the human still does not actually understand the characters, merely following instructions to converse. Searle states that both the computer and human are doing identical tasks, following instructions without truly understanding or “thinking”.
Searle asserts that there is no essential difference between the roles of the computer and the human in the experiment. Each simply follows a program, step-by-step, producing behavior that makes them appear to understand. However, the human would not be able to understand the conversation. Therefore, he argues, it follows that the computer would not be able to understand the conversation either.
That just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of levels. Neither the computer nor the human understands Chinese. Both the programs do, however.
My impression as an atheist is that there is no special sauce that makes human intelligence impossible to achieve. It will happen eventually.
Our brains are computers made of meat. Nothing more. Our thoughts, our dreams, our consciousness itself is quite literally just chemicals, hormones and synapses instead of circuits, binary code and wiring. There is no soul that would prevent true life from arising once the computing becomes powerful enough for it.
Exactly this. We’re always moving the goalposts to maintain the belief of human exceptionalism. We also used to say that tool use and construction were what separated humans from the animals, until examples were found of animals using or making tools, and then we moved the goalposts further to exclude them.
This pervasive belief that humans are beyond nature or singularly extraordinary in their intelligence and consciousness is rooted in arrogance and bad science, and it hinders our understanding of science and consciousness and our place in the universe.
If an intelligence is able to feign consciousness so well that we can’t distinguish it from “real” sentience, then it’s close enough that we should treat it as such. Those who insist on defending the idea of human exceptionalism are simply invested in maintaining human superiority and exploitation of animals and machines beyond what humans and law would otherwise accept as moral, if we were to respect other intelligences as equal and deserving of their own rights.
I’d also like to popularize the opinion that critical thinking, sentience, and intelligence don’t necessary make a species “better”. High intelligence is demonstrably helpful for world domination, but this is not necessarily an entirely objective improvement.
You think humans are the greatest? Have you met orangutans?
Personally, I think higher intelligence is better. I think it seems like it’s gone badly because we haven’t finished our progression yet, and we’re still a little too much primate. If we can keep from destroying the planet, we may get there.
I also don’t think we’ll be the last species to get to this point. We were just the first.
Really seems silly to me to focus so much on the distinctions between species. We all came from the same primordial soup of RNA on this planet (probably), and we’re all essentially just accumulated deviations & variations on those original building blocks. I believe in my bones that were still in the early stages of development, and this is no closer to the end result than an egg or a cocoon.
Y’all might enjoy reading Blindsight. Really digs into questions of sapience, intelligence, etc. Is it evolutionary cost worth it? I’ve read it 15+ times. Because I’m a psycho.
“You think we’re nothing but a Chinese Room,” Rorschach sneered. “Your mistake, Theseus.”
And suddenly Rorschach snapped into view—no refractory composites, no profiles or simulations in false color. There it was at last, naked even to Human eyes.
Imagine a crown of thorns, twisted, dark and unreflective, grown too thickly tangled to ever rest on any human head. Put it in orbit around a failed star whose own reflected half-light does little more than throw its satellites into silhouette. Occasional bloody highlights glinted like dim embers from its twists and crannies; they only emphasized the darkness everywhere else.
Imagine an artefact that embodies the very notion of torture, something so wrenched and disfigured that even across uncounted lightyears and unimaginable differences in biology and outlook, you can’t help but feel that somehow, the structure itself is in pain.
Now make it the size of a city.