Artificial Intelligence at Human Level by 2029?

Gerard Boyers writes "Some members of the US National Academy of Engineering have predicted that Artificial Intelligence will reach the level of humans in around 20 years. Ray Kurzweil leads the charge: 'We will have both the hardware and the software to achieve human level artificial intelligence with the broad suppleness of human intelligence including our emotional intelligence by 2029. We're already a human machine civilization, we use our technology to expand our physical and mental horizons and this will be a further extension of that. We'll have intelligent nanobots go into our brains through the capillaries and interact directly with our biological neurons.' Mr Kurzweil is one of 18 influential thinkers, and a gentleman we've discussed previously. He was chosen to identify the great technological challenges facing humanity in the 21st century by the US National Academy of Engineering. The experts include Google founder Larry Page and genome pioneer Dr Craig Venter."

Comments

Re:Well I'm not holding my breath

[2.7182]

Yes, I remember well my youth, reading Goedel Escher Bach and Winograd, etc., thinking that the next scientific revolution was coming. Things never got any better than Eliza. Now as a hard scientist, I strongly feel that the problem is far far off.

Kurzweil's rebuttal from his book...

[doug141]

The Singularity is Near has a rebuttal of your first paragraph. Any sucessful part of AI research spins off into its own well-functioning discipline... optical character recognition, dictation software, text-to-speech, etc... they were sci-fi "AI" in 1980 and now they are working technologies. AI research is the umbrella under which only the unsolved problems still lie, and thus is always undone.

Re:Oblig.

[fyngyrz]

Speaking as an engineer and a (~40-year) programmer:

Odds are extremely good for beyond human AI, given no restrictions on initial and early form factor. I say this because thus far, we've discovered nothing whatsoever that is non-reproducible about the brain's structure and function, all that has to happen here is for that trend to continue; and given that nowhere in nature, at any scale remotely similar to the range that includes particles, cells and animals, have we discovered anything that appears to follow an unknowable set of rules, the odds of finding anything like that in the brain, that is, something we can't simulate or emulate with 100% functional veracity, are just about zero.

Odds are downright terrible for "intelligent nanobots", we might have hardware that can do what a cell can do, that is, hunt for (possibly a series of) chemical cues and latch on to them, then deliver the payload -- perhaps repeatedly in the case of disease-fighting designs -- but putting intelligence into something on the nanoscale is a challenge of an entirely different sort that we have not even begun to move down the road on; if this is to be accomplished, the intelligence won't be "in" the nano bot, it'll be a telepresence for an external unit (and we're nowhere down *that* road, either -- nanoscale sensors and transceivers are the target, we're more at the level of Look, Martha, a GEAR! A Pseudo-Flagellum!)

The problem with hand-waving -- even when you're Ray Kurzweil, whom I respect enormously -- is that one wave out of many can include a technology that never develops, and your whole creation comes crashing down.

I love this discussion. :-)

Re:Oblig.

[fyngyrz]

But sadly, we still know jack shit about how the brain works

Most of us know jack about the algorithms that allow us to catch a baseball in flight, yet we can still do it. Furthermore, a person from 10000 BC with no math at all by today's standards could do it just as well as we can. Implementing solutions does not always require a complete understanding of what you've done. You can even be wrong and it'll still work for other reasons. So hard-pegging this to what we "know" could be a severe error.

And no, simply copying the brain structure will not the answer.

That's a very bold statement, especially since (a) that's the way nature does it for all its intelligences, high and low, so we know the process works in the general case, and (b) as you say, we don't know many things yet, so claiming that we "know" what won't work seems to be disingenuous or at the very least not well thought out.

I think it is important not to conflate the fact that we don't understand something with the idea that it will be difficult once figured out or discovered as a consequence of some fortuitous sequence of events. That's been shown again and again not to be the case. It *may* be so, but it is by no means certain to be so, and for that matter, it isn't indicated by the complexity of the brain's hardware. The brain is considerably more formidable as a mass of immensely complex moderated connectivity than it is as a collection of cellular-level mystery machines, and a good deal of the complexity at the cellular level is almost certainly irrelevant to the task of thought -- keeping the cell alive is probably in no way related to non-pathological mental operation, yet there's a lot of hardware and systems involved in the task.