Dr Andy Ho is right in saying that human cognition involves much more than the brain ("Humans, AI won't be replacing you... yet"; last Thursday).
In his book, How Things Shape The Mind: A Theory Of Material Engagement, Dr Lambros Malafouris, a research fellow at the University of Oxford, explores the different ways in which things become cognitive extensions of, or are incorporated by, the human body.
He argues that human intelligence "spreads out" beyond the skin into culture and the material world, and is amenable to drastic, deep re-organisation by incorporating new tools and technological innovations.
An example of a blind man with a stick demonstrates the profound plasticity of the human mind. Via the stick, the blind man turns touch into "sight" through tactile sensation with the environment, with the result that the brain treats the stick as part of the body, or a sort of "cognitive prosthesis".
Similarly, other examples of the "stick" acting as an interface can range from our earliest ancestors' use of stone tools to our technological advances, such as the Internet and iPhone, which act as pathways to further exploration.
It is through these "sticks" that the human species, much like the blind man, feels, discovers and makes sense of the environment, and enacts the way forward with purpose, direction and meaning.
French philosopher Henri Bergson, in his 1907 book, Creative Evolution, said human intelligence was originally a facility to create artificial objects, with these "sticks" acting as material scaffold to think through, with and about.
Indeed, things do much of our thinking. A stick used by a monkey in captivity to retrieve food is different from a blind man's use of a stick.
For humans, the use of a stick is in the Aristotelian sense, in which "seeing" is associated with the desire to know the environment. In contrast, for monkeys, sticks are basically used to look for food.
The unique human ability to engage with material culture contributes to our "metaplasticity" - we have plastic minds that develop and change as they interact with the world, something that machines or animals are unable to do.
Maria Loh Mun Foong (Ms)
Inevitable that machines will become smarter than humans
As someone who is very interested in the concept of singularity (the moment when machines become smarter than people), I would like to address a few points raised by Dr Andy Ho ("Humans, AI won't be replacing you... yet"; last Thursday).
The recursive improvement of computers is not the only path to singularity.
Author Ray Kurzweil also mentioned recursively improving brain-computer interfaces, for example, a vastly enhanced version of what theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking currently uses. This scenario promotes the participation of humanity in singularity.
Mr Kurzweil does not advocate the scenario where humanity is made irrelevant by ultra-intelligent machines. In fact, he has stated that humans will adapt and eventually merge with such machines, vastly expanding the capabilities and potential of humanity as a whole.
The question of whether it is possible for singularity to actually happen does not really depend on the definition of intelligence. It is merely sufficient that such recursively improving machines appear to be intelligent.
Even if the machines are "zombies" acting intelligently when they are actually not, the effect on the real world remains the same (that is, recursively improving machines will exist and eventually become more intelligent than a current "baseline" human).
The argument that computers cannot achieve and surpass human intelligence because of embodiment (that is, the computer must have a body to sense, move and manipulate its environment) is a weak argument against the occurrence of singularity - it merely postpones it.
The exponential improvement rate of technologies will result in a delay of only a few years to decades. Even if it were centuries, the narrative of singularity's impact on humanity would not change.
In fact, with the United States' Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies initiative and the European Union's Human Brain Project, detailed brain simulation capability would not be more than several decades away.
Singularity is more or less inevitable. At every milestone along the way to it, there are clear economic benefits to be obtained.
Better and more capable computers and software will result in greater economic gains. Improved brain-computer interfaces and medical devices will benefit disabled or sick people.
It is far better that humanity adapt to or adopt such technology with virtually limitless potential, than be relegated to a footnote in the history of our universe.
Brian Koh Sze Hsian
No comments:
Post a Comment