AI research has been going now for 60 years and we have pitifully little (apart from a few expert systems) to show for it. It is on-going and billions are still being spent on it but its a barren dry field. The most important thing it has given us is the realisation that intelligent behaviour and sense of self is remarkably complex and digital machines can't replicate it. Mimic, to a limited extent, but not actually show aware, self-seeking behaviour.
Another sixty years won't change that.
That's why all the smart money is in biotech -- because that might show more promise. A computer with a synthetic mind made out of living neurons might be more promising.
Wait just a minute! Just because we've yet to build a machine as intelligent as a human being doesn't mean we haven't made remarkable progress, particularly in the last decade.
And where do you get the notion that digital machines can't be self-aware? What, exactly, are you basing this theory on? Are you claiming that some form of quantum state is required, or are you saying that intelligence needs to be analog?
I can see you don't have any background on this otherwise you would already know the answers. This has been well researched by biologists, linguists and cyberneticians for well over half a century both at the academic and applied level.
"Intelligence" is neither digital or analogue (or maybe its a quantum artifact) -- we don't have a clue what it is. That's the point. It appears to be an emergent property of organic systems that must evolve over the development of that system but we still can't prove that we are intelligent or self-aware. But we can be certain it doesn't appear in purely deterministic machines who's every parameter can be assessed at the fine grain level.
>But we can be certain it doesn't appear in purely deterministic machines who's every
>parameter can be assessed at the fine grain level.
I don't know why you think this statement doesn't apply to humans. We're deterministic machines as well. More complicated perhaps, and less is known about the "fine grain level", but there is no evidence that we are anything more than complicated meat machines.
It does indeed apply to humans. If you could be bothered to read the rest of this thread you'd see that this is precisely the point I am trying to make.
Humans are machines. But we (and other living things) appear to exhibit defined properties that are not present in complex digital machines. It also seems that what we refer to as self-awareness is an emergent property that living things have, although in theory, not specifically limited to living things.
That set of properties is what is formally defined as having a mind. Whatever that means, and I agree its far from clear what that is.
But -- and its a big but -- digital processes don't seem to be able to mimic or model it (that could be our shortcoming -- the models are not any good) and it isn't just a matter of more memory/processing power/a big enough look-up table. These are not the problem nor the answer. It isn't just a CompSci issue. If it were just that, we would have it licked by now and we would all have interchangeable minds that we could simply reprogram and upload with new sets of skills and belief systems (yes, Robots would definitely need them too, by the way).
We have a long way to go and for a while now we've been heading down the wrong road. But don't take my word for it.
I agree we have a long way to go, and I don't know enough about the state of the art to say whether we're heading down the wrong road or not. But I'd like to point out an something that made an impact on me. Thomas Nagel's essay "What is it like to be a bat?":
He makes a distinction between subjective understanding of consciousness ("What is it like to be X?") and the objective understanding (What are the atoms and neurons doing? What is the structure of the mind?) I think this distinction is a big part of why you, and society as a whole, dismisses AI.
We have a much deeper objective understanding of computers than we do about our own brains. But comparatively, bats are as familiar as our own siblings next to our subjective understanding of "what it is like" to be a computer. We simply have no basis for comparison. We can't put ourselves in a computer's shoes. And without this subjective, gut feeling comparison, people in general find it difficult or impossible to assign the word "intelligence" to any non-humanoid entity, be it whales, robots, or computers.
No, whales are intelligent alright. There's no doubt about that. Bats almost certainly are as well. At least I believe they are self-aware and have an inner life as an individual as well as being part of a group.
I also am a great believer in things being more than just the sum of their parts -- or at least to have that potential. I just don't believe there are any sentient machines. Yet. And I'm not going to waste my time anthropomorphising them.
Because that's not going to make them happen any sooner.
If we have no idea what intelligence is, how can you make the claim that it cannot appear in a purely deterministic machine?
Clearly there's no theoretical difficulty; with a large enough lookup table you could simulate every action an individual could take. Whether this lookup table can be considered conscious is academic if we have no way of defining consciousness.
So the question becomes: is there a more efficient algorithm that can be executed by a machine that it is feasible to build?
Because you're apparently certain that there isn't, you must have a mathematical proof that this algorithm cannot exist, right?
And even if your "certainty" was merely hyperbole, perhaps in lieu of proof you could provide some compelling evidence of your case?
"with a large enough lookup table you could simulate every action an individual could take"
Oh dear. That's Artificial Intelligence Day 1. It also doesn't work. That isn't an AI. There's also the slight dual problems of Nyquist and Shannon limits which dictate why this can't physically work in a digital system. But never mind. You seem to know that it is possible and it that's how to do it. No amount of prior research since 1948 onwards will be of any use to you.
You already have the answer. Its all just a matter of brute-force computing power and nothing else. Its that unsubtle, is it? Geee -- what a waste of time! All these years and it was just a matter of a big enough look up table. What a fool everyone has been not to just realise that!
So c'mon then, where is your fully functional robotic AI? Keeping it a secret isn't fair to the rest of us.
Your dividing line is anything we accomplish short of full-blown human intelligence is an expert system and everything is AI. It is an irrelevant distinction anyway since AI research has directly lead to the tens of thousands of expert systems that are in use every day.
No, I'd settle for an AI that exhibited even the self-determination and learning ability of a common ant or honey bee. Especially if all you are going to do with it is stick it in a missile and blow people up. We have nothing like this, nothing.
I know because I associate with cyberneticists, software engineers and biologists who have made this their life's work and who are engaged on this day in, day out.
Truly independent strong AI's are a pipe dream. At least for now. And merely throwing money at the problem won't by itself solve that. Digital computers as we know them and by themselves will not give us what we want. And why it is IMPERATIVE that AIs must be Asimov machines or at least can recognise friend or foe ... or else we are all in big trouble. The facts are we have nothing like this, nor does it seem anything too promising in that direction. Even humans aren't all that good at it if the stories of "friendly fire" are anything to go by. But I suppose you are saying "collateral damage" is a worthwhile price to pay for trying to develop AI's? Try explaining that on the six-o'clock news when a "safe" prototype AI drone malfunctions in a city full of your own people. Or even in a battlefield scenario.
I suggest you read the work of people like Blay Whitby and Kyran Dale (University of Sussex School of Cognitive and computing Sciences) for some practical background.
Another sixty years won't change that.
That's why all the smart money is in biotech -- because that might show more promise. A computer with a synthetic mind made out of living neurons might be more promising.