# Artificial Intelligence and evolution **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 7, 2016, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-and-evolution/754125 "2016-05-07T00:44:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-and-evolution/754125/81 "2016-05-13T21:29:13Z")
> [@PlaceboTarget](#): > > What about an autonomous car? Is an autonomous car more intelligent than a bug? And if so, in what way is an autonomous car running among other cars (and other potential perils) more intelligent than a bug running among other bugs (and other potential perils)? I don’t see how any of this is relevant to the discussion. You seem quite fixated about bugs. Are you claiming that bugs are intelligent? Are you looking for a definition of intelligence? Insects do everything according to hardwired instincts, AFAIK. There is no intelligence involved because at no point does the bug do any thinking, and at no point did it do any thinking to achieve its current capabilities, and neither did anyone else. If beneficial traits survive and detrimental ones die off, it’s axiomatic that with random mutations beneficial traits will increasingly dominate. If such traits result in the appearance of complex behavior, it may seem like intelligence but it’s a confusing and grossly incorrect use of the term to call it that. Bugs would only be intelligent if they could solve new problems by a process of reasoning, or if they could optimize and adapt their behavior by learning from experience. Whether an autonomous car is “intelligent” is, again, completely irrelevant to this discussion and is a fairly arbitrary semantic question. To say that a self-driving car has to operate in a far, far more complex environment than insects is an extreme understatement – it’s not within orders of magnitude, not even on the same planet. Moreover, it has to do so with failsafe accuracy and rapid decision-making from sometimes non-optimal choices. And that’s just in terms of high-level behaviors; down under the surface, it’s an immensely challenging problem in visual signal processing, pattern recognition, mapping, and many other things. Even extremely intuitive capabilities like interpreting three-dimensional objects correctly is far from computationally trivial. So I’d say that self-driving cars are pushing the state of the art of AI in several areas. No, you couldn’t get an ant to do it! ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2016, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-and-evolution/754125/82 "2016-05-14T01:36:45Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > If a chatbot can’t do that – namely, play that game while mentioning that it’s playing that game – then it fails the Turing test, right? I can do it, so you’d be able to spot an impostor in no time flat. But this is a chatbot that can _pass_ the Turing test, so it must be able to make reference to the game it’s playing. > > Now take it one step further: you and I are having a conversation, and suddenly you suggest we simultaneously play chess. Being an intelligent human, I respond with an otherwise-conversational post that kicks off with an Nf3 – and you respond to that with an equally-conversational post that includes a d5. And we keep conversing, while carrying on a game of chess; and you eventually make reference to how we’re conversing while playing a game of chess; and I reply by doing likewise. > > So I figure that, in order to pass the Turing test, it _has_ to be able to mention whether or not it’s playing that game of chess with you; if it can’t do that, you’d leap to your feet and jab your finger at the monitor and shriek IMPOSTOR! This is different from what I took away from it, which is that one can play chess with ones subconscious mind and not be focusing on it. But this is an interesting point also. I think computers have been able to answer “what are you doing now” for some time. And if you knew your program was going to be asked about chess, you could put in why it made a move - though abstracting that to the level a human would express it might be hard. But could the computer watch itself play? Could it get mad at its play, without a pre-programmed mad function. (There was an AI program with that in 1975.) But my point was really that we can be intelligent without being conscious of it. And are all the time. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2016, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-and-evolution/754125/83 "2016-05-14T01:40:18Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > But having two entire systems – let alone the triple-layering of the human brain with reptilian/mammalian/hominid workings – is a result of evolution, whereas an AI, one presumes, is going to be a result of intelligent engineering. I don’t know about that. Doing something while analyzing what you are doing is a lot less efficient than just doing it, and a conscious system will throw problems at non-conscious co-processors, just like you can call a library package to do something without being able to or wanting to look inside it. Which sucks when it breaks, but is usually far more efficient. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2016, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-and-evolution/754125/84 "2016-05-14T02:08:21Z")
We’re talking about reflection here. We don’t know that our own subconscious isn’t reflective, we just can’t reflect on on our subconscious. Again, I don’t think it’s that big of a deal. An intelligent machine might not be able to observe itself but could still observe other things, even a duplicate of itself. It wouldn’t have self awareness, but only from a lack of, or intentional restriction in it’s programming, while still having that complete capability. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2016, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-and-evolution/754125/85 "2016-05-14T03:27:31Z")
There’s multiple definitions of intelligence at work in the thread. Julian Jaynes’ book — whatever one thinks of his hypothesis — does a good job of separating “subjective consciousness” from creativity and intelligence. Indeed, as **Voyager** points out, self-awareness can _interfere_ with creativity. Inventions appear suddenly in one’s head, as if from a dream. Are dogs self-aware? I think when robots can handle a broad range of tasks as well as dogs do we can say AI has arrived. > [@wolfpup](#): > > … Freaking stupid typos like this come from fast typing where the fingers start hitting common letter combinations before the brain catches up. Someone should do a cognitive science study on it. 😛 Just as children are less likely to misbehave when they’re being watched, I find that it helps if I stare at my fingers and keyboard when typing. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2016, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-and-evolution/754125/86 "2016-05-14T03:51:01Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I don’t know about that. Doing something while analyzing what you are doing is a lot less efficient than just doing it, and a conscious system will throw problems at non-conscious co-processors, just like you can call a library package to do something without being able to or wanting to look inside it. Which sucks when it breaks, but is usually far more efficient. A non-conscious co-processor isn’t quite the same as the unconscious mind, which is almost an entire parallel processor. A bolt-on math package isn’t the same as a dreaming mind. I definitely agree that the former have great utility, but I think the latter are oddities of evolution, and would be unlikely for us to design deliberately. (One might even argue the other way around, and build an AI as a community of minds, not with just two major consciousnesses, but fifty…or a billion.) ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2016, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-and-evolution/754125/87 "2016-05-14T14:06:16Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > There’s multiple definitions of intelligence at work in the thread. Julian Jaynes’ book — whatever one thinks of his hypothesis — does a good job of separating “subjective consciousness” from creativity and intelligence. Indeed, as **Voyager** points out, self-awareness can _interfere_ with creativity. But isn’t that the beauty of the Turing test? If we’re chatting online, I can only pass the test if I can act like an intelligent person – _however you define intelligence_. If it’s a strict definition, satisfied by logical responses delivered conversationally, then you’ll declare me intelligent in short order; but if it’s a loosey-goosey definition where I have to display creativity and self-awareness, well, then, I have to do _that_. If we meet up again in some other thread, I’d hope you’d react with a quick _oh, yeah; I know that guy; he’s an interesting thinker who seems significantly similar to me in all the relevant ways; I don’t believe he’s a chatbot._ I don’t know exactly what sparks that “oh, yeah” from you – but whatever it is, whatever you automatically build the test around whenever you’re in a conversation, that’s what I have to supply. ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2016, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-and-evolution/754125/88 "2016-05-14T17:11:14Z")
> [@GreenWyvern](#): > > When you talk of AI, I assume you mean _conscious_ AI, because anything else is just a complex mechanical procedure. Can you demonstrate that consciousness is the result of something other than a complex mechanical procedure? ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2016, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-and-evolution/754125/89 "2016-05-14T17:20:56Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > Disagree. > > Any given physiological or behavioral characteristic has to have a first instance. It might be tough to get agreement on _which_ benchmark to set, but that’s a different matter than claiming there _are no_ distinctions between any two generations. It’s a good thing I made no such claim, then! I am very distinct from my parents, in many different ways. However, none of these distinctions cause me to be a different type of creature than my parents are. My argument is that no matter which individual of any species anywhere in history you look at, it’s the same type of creature as its parents, and its offspring. For example, there was never an animal that couldn’t fly one generation, who had offspring that could fly. The ability to fly came as a gradual process over many generations, not a light switch flicking the “fly” process from off to on. The same is true for consciousness, or self awareness, or abstract thought, or whatever term you want to use for how we think differently from other animals. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2016, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-and-evolution/754125/90 "2016-05-14T20:33:10Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > A non-conscious co-processor isn’t quite the same as the unconscious mind, which is almost an entire parallel processor. A bolt-on math package isn’t the same as a dreaming mind. > > I definitely agree that the former have great utility, but I think the latter are oddities of evolution, and would be unlikely for us to design deliberately. > > (One might even argue the other way around, and build an AI as a community of minds, not with just two major consciousnesses, but fifty…or a billion.) A non-conscious co-processor, as I meant it, does run in parallel. A math package doesn’t, but a math package running on another processor is. As for dreams, I don’t know about you but when I get myself in a terrible muddle in a dream and solve it by realizing I’m just dreaming it is when I wake up. This is obviously simplistic, but perhaps we can see our memories of dreams as data left in our shared memory, which gets erased by other dreams and in any case is only partially there. And we clearly migrate processes, such as driving, to our subconscious, which does it better. My kids drove much better when they stopped thinking about it and it became automatic. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2016, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-and-evolution/754125/91 "2016-05-14T21:14:00Z")
Totally agree re driving. It’s SCARY to have been driving for twenty minutes and realize you have no memory of it at all, but the part of the overall “mind system” that has been doing the job has most probably been doing it very well indeed. (This sometimes – kind of rarely – leads to the unconscious mind driving to the wrong destination. I set out to go to the grocery store, but drove to the gas station instead.) Dreaming, and unconscious problem solving, are WEIRD! Just plain weird. Kekule and the Benzene Ring! I’ve had that kind of thing happen, where, in a dream, the answer to a difficult computer-programming problem comes to me. In college, I had a math problem that was kicking me around, and, in a dream, a vast hollow voice cried out, “Polar Coordinates.” Made everything work, nice and neat. Thank you, vast hollow voice! ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2016, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-and-evolution/754125/92 "2016-05-15T00:24:29Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Totally agree re driving. It’s SCARY to have been driving for twenty minutes and realize you have no memory of it at all, but the part of the overall “mind system” that has been doing the job has most probably been doing it very well indeed. That great philosopher Lord Buckley talks about this very thing in a bit called [Subconscious Mind](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_Ntq6GKecE). ---
**Author:** ![Section\_Maker\_Jupe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/section_maker_jupe/32/1424_2.png) [@Section\_Maker\_Jupe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Section_Maker_Jupe)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2016, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-and-evolution/754125/93 "2016-05-15T03:34:27Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > In college, I had a math problem that was kicking me around, and, in a dream, a vast hollow voice cried out, “Polar Coordinates.” Made everything work, nice and neat. Thank you, vast hollow voice! oh no its…The Ghost in the Machine.:eek:. kidding, just kidding. I’ve fallen asleep a few times and watched the Daily Data Dump…ha D3, where I was watching the days memories replayed backwards, presumably being sorted into the keep and delete bins. I was actively trying to fall asleep “awake”, during this time, you know the old lucid dreaming thing…never quite got the hang of it tho. Still, felt like good training, for what…I dunno? I’ve always felt its usefull to try get a handle on “self” whatever the heck it is…I mean, I have one to play around with, with its quirks etc…(me and 6 billion others!) may as well fiddle around. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2016, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-and-evolution/754125/94 "2016-05-15T05:22:23Z")
So what happens when we accept, not just realize, but accept that we are nothing more than self-replicating molecular machines than can be made molecularly, or simulated via software? Intelligence is nothing more than a molecular machine with three and half billion years of bloatware tacked on. What happens when we accept there really isn’t anything magical or special about us? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2016, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-and-evolution/754125/95 "2016-05-15T06:06:51Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > So what happens when we accept, not just realize, but accept that we are nothing more than self-replicating molecular machines than can be made molecularly, or simulated via software? Intelligence is nothing more than a molecular machine with three and half billion years of bloatware tacked on. > > What happens when we accept there really isn’t anything magical or special about us? Nothing happened to me when I accepted that about 40 years ago. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2016, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-and-evolution/754125/96 "2016-05-15T06:26:00Z")
Religion will cope. Philosophy will have a great time! Civilization will endure. We’ll continue with other interests, such as World Cup Football and the sex scandals of movie stars, and never even notice. What difference did the de-mystifying of organic chemistry have on society? Hardly any. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2016, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-and-evolution/754125/97 "2016-05-15T06:42:22Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > So what happens when we accept, not just realize, but accept that we are nothing more than self-replicating molecular machines than can be made molecularly, or simulated via software? Intelligence is nothing more than a molecular machine with three and half billion years of bloatware tacked on. > > What happens when we accept there really isn’t anything magical or special about us? We will then accept the future enhanced humans and AIs as our descendants. “Alpha… we are the children of humanity.” - Android Cocone in Yokohama Kaidashi Kikou 93. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2016, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-and-evolution/754125/98 "2016-05-15T06:47:33Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > What difference did the de-mystifying of organic chemistry have on society? Hardly any. Well, it had a pretty radical effect on cellular physiology, microevolution, and ultimately medicine, which the vast majority of the population is totally incapable of understanding due to their less than rudimenary understanding of the basic tenets of biology and evolution. For most people, life is pretty much as magical as iPhones, and gods are responsible for both. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2016, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-and-evolution/754125/99 "2016-05-15T08:13:08Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > So what happens when we accept, not just realize, but accept that we are nothing more than self-replicating molecular machines than can be made molecularly, or simulated via software? Intelligence is nothing more than a molecular machine with three and half billion years of bloatware tacked on. When I was a kid, I asked _where do babies come from?_ The answer was [del]when a mommy and daddy love each other very much[/del] that a pair of self-replicating molecular machines can and do build them. Sounded weird, but then I grew up and tried it – and my wife and I replicated one! The math checked out! That was the _convincer_, lemme tell ya! I could make another one tonight! Or a sandwich! Or first one and then the other! > [@levdrakon](#): > > What happens when we accept there really isn’t anything magical or special about us? You’re intelligent, and can make intelligent makers; what more do you want, a sandwich? (Because I can make those; I can make a guy called Reuben, _and_ I can make a sandwich called Reuben. And one of those might create an invention or a masterpiece, or might explore strange new worlds while seeking new life and new civilizations – and the other one is also quite marvelous.) (My point is, a sufficiently advanced Reuben is indistinguishable from magic.) ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2016, 10:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-and-evolution/754125/100 "2016-05-15T10:36:42Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > So what happens when we accept, not just realize, but accept that we are nothing more than self-replicating molecular machines than can be made molecularly, or simulated via software? Intelligence is nothing more than a molecular machine with three and half billion years of bloatware tacked on. > > What happens when we accept there really isn’t anything magical or special about us? Then we start living like our time is all we get, and that we should make that enjoyable for ourselves and others, instead of tearing each other and ourselves apart based on the idea that life is but an insignificant, miniscule part of your existance which is only significant because it’s a test to see how you get to spend eternity in magical ghost form. The world instantly becomes a better place. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-and-evolution/754125.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-and-evolution/754125.md?page=6)