<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/stylesheets/rss.css" type="text/css"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:trackback="http://madskills.com/public/xml/rss/module/trackback/">
  <channel>
    <title>Eikonoklastes by Michael Hartl: Artificial intelligence</title>
    <link>http://eikonoklastes.org/articles/2006/07/02/artificial-intelligence</link>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <ttl>40</ttl>
    <description>where nothing is sacred</description>
    <item>
      <title>Artificial intelligence</title>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://eikonoklastes.org/articles/category/crazy-futurist-stuff"&gt;(Part 3 of 4)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Just as the laws of physics allow the manipulation of matter on the finest
scales, so too do they allow the possibility of machines that think.  After
all, (some) human beings think, and we are made of atoms just like everything
else.  The only relevant questions center on  &lt;em&gt;making&lt;/em&gt; a thinking
machine&amp;mdash;how hard will it be; how long will it take?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;There are many scientists and philosophers who argue, for one reason or
another, that artificial intelligence (AI) is impossible.  What they usually
mean is that it must be very hard, and they can&amp;#8217;t imagine how to do
it&amp;mdash;that is, they imply that a problem of practice is a problem of
principle.  As in the case of nanotechnology, all of these arguments must
ultimately fail:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Since brains follow the laws of physics, artificial
intelligence is possible in principle.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;(Of course, many people reject the premise of this argument: they believe
that human beings transcend physical law in some way, perhaps through an
immaterial &amp;#8220;soul&amp;#8221; or &amp;#8220;spirit&amp;#8221;.  Such people may be right, but it is more
likely that what we identify as &amp;#8220;spirit&amp;#8221; is &lt;em&gt;information&lt;/em&gt;, which is
still fundamentally physical in nature.  In any case, there is currently no
credible evidence that human beings violate known physical law.)&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Artificial intelligence will have even farther-reaching consequences than
nanotechnology (among other things, a sufficiently advanced AI would
immediately invent nanotechnology if necessary), but the implications are
harder to see&amp;mdash;we&amp;#8217;re simply too stupid to think of all the
implications!  Nevertheless, there has been much inspired speculation over
the years; my favorite is Ray Kurzweil&amp;#8217;s book &lt;a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0140282025/102-6855786-6500910?v=glance"&gt;&lt;em&gt;The
Age of Spiritual Machines&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 02 Jul 2006 08:32:00 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">urn:uuid:6544fcd9-07ce-4164-8fa2-88b00272c908</guid>
      <author>Michael Hartl</author>
      <link>http://eikonoklastes.org/articles/2006/07/02/artificial-intelligence</link>
      <category>Science &amp; Technology</category>
      <category>Crazy futurist stuff</category>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
