Artificial Intelligence, a nebulous
area, has been around from the advent of computers. Every decade, aided by
increasing computing power and cheaper memory, those who just got out of school
start to believe they found something new. Most often, new terms are invented
to relabel what has been known forever. In the latest iteration, terms such as
machine and deep learning have been trending. More interestingly, in the
current wave, a new profession is coined, aptly called, "data
science." Consulting firms, running out of ideas, strategies and PowerPoint
magic, have been jumping in, to make a fast buck. The larger ones have
assembled "thousands of data scientists," to make AI for their
clients. The smaller ones have raised many 100s of millions of $ to "change the world." Now that we are approaching practical quantum computing
within a decade, the next wave is just about to start. The behemoths, stuck with
excess cloud capacity, have been providing "tools," so that they can
download the costs of the stranded investments to the users. Unfortunately, all of these could be rendered obsolete
in a few years. It may be a warning sign for educational institutions scrambling to create more data scientists on-line or not.
Autonomous automobiles and
aircrafts are not AI, they are transportation modalities with a computer onboard. Robots that can put nuts and bolts together, assemble objects of use and
occasionally jump in magnificent ways are not evidence of AI, just expert logic
embedded in mechanical systems. Fooling people into thinking there is a human on
the other side of the telephone is not AI just a set of rules fed into a
synthesizer. Machines beating humans in prescriptive games is not AI - they are
either a massive set of rules fed into high powered computers or
pattern-finding neural nets (some call it deep learning) on steroids.
None of these use cases have anything to do with AI, generalized or not. They
just make some feel important and make a lot of positive economics for their proponents.
However, we cannot move an inch
forward in AI without a coherent theory of consciousness. Engineers have been on a quest to define what they do not seem to understand, by quantitative means. It is possible that consciousness is a property that is externally applied. If so, the entities with consciousness are unlikely to understand it. In the absence of a theory from within, one possible explanation is that consciousness is induced by the simulator of the game. If so, it is likely that consciousness is a democratized property and is not limited to humans, let alone living things. This may explain why humans locked in a mathematical jail seem unable to understand it.
Thank you for sharing such a useful article. I had a great time. This article was fantastic to read. Continue to publish more articles on
ReplyDeleteData Engineering Solutions
Thanks for your note.
You may like my videocast on YouTube: Scientific Sense - YouTube
Podcast on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/7AsWBQw2VuB7ILHPQytCMR
And articles on Medium: https://gilleapen.medium.com