This is a fantastic article. Perfectly encapsulates all of my issues with AI doomsayers.<p><i>> Cynics might say that you have to eliminate humans because of expense and human error, etc, but now we are losing sight of purpose: what are humans here for? Humanity is the source of intent, and there is no independent evolutionary mechanism competing with that. Without humans, there is not even a process to automate.</i><p>Some very intelligent people are quick to jump aboard the "AI existential crisis" train without considering the larger evolutionary picture. We are not separate from the computer systems we create, they exist in a symbiotic relationship with us and they are driven by <i>our</i> basic needs. Our basic needs are driven by the emergent biological properties of our bodies and our ecosystem. While it can be argued with our "intelligence" we do harm to these things, it is not in our best interest to eliminate them. Machines (and automation) are just logical <i>necessarily biological</i> extensions of humanity. Silicon is just life's next evolutionary step. It is not reasonable to believe, based on patterns of evolutionary development, that life (including humanity) is at serious existential risk from this progression.<p><i>> For an intelligence to emerge, in an artificial system, we would have to very purposely built it and train it interactively. We are not merely databases. Even if we could do this:<p>> Do we know what intelligence is?<p>> Why would be make something to imitate our own?<p>> Would an artificial system have curiosity? (perish all the Internet cats!)<p>> Why do we think that intelligence would escape and kill us?<p>> Why would we equip the intelligence with access to the tools for our demise?<p>> Are we so sure that we would even be noticed or interesting to an artificial intelligence?<p>> Would we even recognize artificial intelligence if it were different from our own, and vice versa?</i><p>Fantastic questions. Brilliant author, was a pleasure to read.
><i>Hand-made confectionary [sic] is still popular.</i><p>Huh.<p>><i>Tupperware has not replaced basket weaving</i><p>Right. Handmade baskets are a staple in any modern american home.<p>><i>Although music can be programmed by computer, opera and classical music are booming.</i><p>Really? Have you turned on the radio in the past 30 years? I live in a major metropolitan area, and there are only two classical music channels. And they are constantly going on fundraising drives, begging listeners to donate so that they can stay on the air.
I'll be happy to put my keyboard down, to write not a single line more of code; there's quite a bit I could do if I wasn't always mired in the realities of writing production grade code.<p>Of course, I imagine that will happen at some point after when McDonalds has been completely automated, and self driving cars can navigate Montana winters with ease.<p>It's an odd article to downplay the impact and capabilities of automation and AI, and then complain that programmers haven't been replaced by the same.
> We need to sharpen our understanding of both intelligence and mechanical behaviour: what is smart behaviour, and who says so?<p>And also: is there a simpler or better theory that accounts for all of the evidence, that is more plausible than intelligence?