# Is AI possible? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 13, 2002, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-ai-possible/108885 "2002-05-13T20:29:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2002, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-ai-possible/108885/81 "2002-05-16T22:07:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > \*\* > The Turing machine model is great for solving computational problems, and limited inferential problems. I have yet to see any explanation of how it would provide genuine intelligence, though. Once again, there’s the question of “burden of proof.” > \*\* Well, one way to do it would be to look at a problem that requires “genuine intelligence” to solve, and propose the outline of an algorhythm that would solve it. IMHO, this would make for an interesting debate. However, I don’t want to be accused of “cooking the books,” so I leave it to you to propose a problem that requires “genuine intelligence” to solve. \*\* > [@](#): > > Not necessary. Such examples abound in everyday life. > \*\* I would really appreciate if you would identify a few. Why not? \*\* > [@](#): > > I’m not prepared to concede that point, as I think that mechanical determinism would preclude true artificial intelligence. For example, I have yet to encounter any explanation of how one create intuition. I have read a number of articles which say, “Well, if we put enough circuits into the computer, I think it would eventually become intelligent,” but obviously, such statements lack explanatory power. > \*\* Personally, I believe that “intelligence” is the result of massive “brute force” processing in your brain. You are not aware of it, but it happens nonetheless. \*\* > [@](#): > > Additionally, I’ve already cited some philosophers whose works (IMO) provide some pretty strong arguments against true A.I.\*\* Well, I’ll take a look (with an open mind) if I get a chance. > [@](#): > > \*\*Earlier in this thread, **ethnicallynot** suggested that they would. His/Her exact said “If we can artificially create new organism, such as bacteria that produce insulin, clone sheep as well as creating highly advanced Turing machines, does it take such a leap to imagine a new intelligent being who’s existence can be directly attributed to our efforts?” \*\* Well, ya got me there. Certainly I think that **ethnicallynot** is confused. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2002, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-ai-possible/108885/82 "2002-05-16T23:19:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lucwarm \* > **Well, one way to do it would be to look at a problem that requires “genuine intelligence” to solve, and propose the outline of an algorhythm that would solve it. IMHO, this would make for an interesting debate. However, I don’t want to be accused of “cooking the books,” so I leave it to you to propose a problem that requires “genuine intelligence” to solve.** Oooh!, oooh!, I know! - how about getting it to try to convince a person th… (only joking) This is a good suggestion **lucwarm** Perhaps something that would require innovation and truly inventive/creative reasoning, but I can’t think of a suitable task ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2002, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-ai-possible/108885/83 "2002-05-16T23:22:08Z")
I don’t think that determinism in the machine need be a limiting factor; not if it interacts with the non-deterministic outside world in any way. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2002, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-ai-possible/108885/84 "2002-05-17T00:34:39Z")
Non-deterministic outside world? Where is that? ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2002, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-ai-possible/108885/85 "2002-05-17T01:07:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lucwarm \* > **Well, one way to do it would be to look at a problem that requires “genuine intelligence” to solve, and propose the outline of an algorhythm that would solve it. IMHO, this would make for an interesting debate. However, I don’t want to be accused of “cooking the books,” so I leave it to you to propose a problem that requires “genuine intelligence” to solve.** How about this one: Learning the concept of object permanence, without having this concept pre-programmed. This is something that infants learn to do. Here’s another, related challenge: To recognize oneself in the mirror AND to learn that the image in the mirror corresponds to oneself. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2002, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-ai-possible/108885/86 "2002-05-17T01:14:07Z")
Hell, my computer already knows about object permanence. It keeps insisting I install software for the same stinking integrated sound card that I’ve decided not to use. I _wish_ it would forget about it! 😛 ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2002, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-ai-possible/108885/87 "2002-05-17T01:23:52Z")
Funny, **erislover**. Funny indeed. 🙂 How about abstract concepts? How would a computer envision, say, the concept of an imaginary color? Or better yet, the concept of a concept? IMO, such (ahem) concepts are beyond the ability of our computational models to encode, much less generate. One _could_ create a data structure and say “I define this to be the concept of a concept,” but that strikes me as an act of blatant cheating. ---
**Author:** ![Phoenix\_Dragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/65b543/32.png) [@Phoenix\_Dragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phoenix_Dragon)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2002, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-ai-possible/108885/88 "2002-05-17T01:39:11Z")
All things considered, I think this brings up a very important question: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > \*\* > That’s not A.I. That’s just I. \*\* The question being, what’s the difference? In essence, a human can be defined as a very, very complex organic machine. If that organic machine then creates another machine, organic, inorganic, or something in-between, which is indistinguishable from any other human being (In the long term, including daily behavior, etc), then how would it be reasonable to call one of these very complex machines intelligent/sentient/concious/whatever and the other not? And what difference does A.I.-vs-I. have? ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2002, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-ai-possible/108885/89 "2002-05-17T01:48:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Phoenix Dragon \* > **The question being, what’s the difference?** Artificial intelligence is artificial. Mere intelligence is not. The point behind “artificial intelligence” is that we are trying to duplicate natural intelligence, using the resources available to us. That’s why it’s fallacious to say “We already have artificial intelligence! It’s inside our brains.” > [@](#): > > \*\*In essence, a human can be defined as a very, very complex organic machine. \*\* At this point, I would consider that to be a gross assumption. In fact, many people – including a great number of scientists – believe that human beings are MORE than just their material bodies. Many scientists and philosophers also believe that a supernatural component (i.e. the soul) is the best way to explain such phenomena as emotion and free will. Thus, the argument “Well, human beings are just machines, so surely we can build a comparable machine that’s also intelligent” strikes me as subtle form of question-begging. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2002, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-ai-possible/108885/90 "2002-05-17T07:20:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > \*\*Non-deterministic outside world? Where is that? \*\* I see what you are saying, but if the outside world is deterministic, then it shouldn’t be a problem that the computer in which the AI resides is also deterministic. So do you really think that the universe in which we live is deterministic at every level? ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2002, 10:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-ai-possible/108885/91 "2002-05-17T10:53:12Z")
I beleive in a relatively homogenous universe. If it is deterministic at one point, it is deterministic at all points. But I don’t know if it is deterministic at even one point. **JThunder** : > [@](#): > > How would a computer envision, say, the concept of an imaginary color? Or better yet, the concept of a concept? We don’t know. In fact, when a computer does do this we probably won’t be too sure either. We don’t know how _we_ do it, either, but of course the hope is that once we understand the machine we’ll understand ourselves, too. Any computer with a relatively sophisticated compiler, like for C++, say, already has a very powerful method for expressing data abstraction in _our_ terms. I’d say that’s one way to have a concept of a concept… of course, you presume that a “concept” is a real thing when it needn’t be. I mean, by the time we get down to the nitty gritty of intelligence, the number 8 isn’t floating around in our heads. And it wouldn’t be on a computer, either. At least in a computer we can say that the number 8 is probably represented by 00…01000. Is that a concept? Why not? ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2002, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-ai-possible/108885/92 "2002-05-17T12:02:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > \*\* > How about this one: Learning the concept of object permanence, without having this concept pre-programmed. This is something that infants learn to do. > > Here’s another, related challenge: To recognize oneself in the mirror AND to learn that the image in the mirror corresponds to oneself. \*\* Well, I object the problems you propose to the extent that they require us to “look inside the box.” Certainly the problem of recognizing an object is a fair challenge. To put the problem in very concrete terms, our hypothetical AI device would be placed in front of a mirror, with its visual element (a camera?) pointed towards the mirror. Our AI device would have distinguishing characteristics, such as a serial number, to make it unique. We would input the command “Identify” into the AI Device, and the proper output would be something like “me” or “me reversed” I’m not an expert on pattern and image recognition algorithms, but it doesn’t seem so far-fetched that a computer system could accomplish this task, even without being able to pass the Turing Test. It could use one of the more successful edge extraction / image recognition algorithms that are floating around out there, combined with lots of processing power. The system could be supplied in advance with images of itself, in reverse, from many different angles. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2002, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-ai-possible/108885/93 "2002-05-17T17:49:27Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by lucwarm \* > \*\* > Well, I object the problems you propose to the extent that they require us to “look inside the box.”_\* Well, if one is to propose that our mathematical models of computation _can_ solve this problem, then it’s only fair to “look inside the box.” > [@](#): > > \*\* > Certainly the problem of recognizing an object is a fair challenge. To put the problem in very concrete terms, our hypothetical AI device would be placed in front of a mirror, with its visual element (a camera?) pointed towards the mirror. Our AI device would have distinguishing characteristics, such as a serial number, to make it unique. We would input the command “Identify” into the AI Device, and the proper output would be something like “me” or “me reversed”\*\* I don’t think that’s satisfactory. For one thing, that would basically amount to _programming_ the device to recognize itself – and as we discussed earlier, that’s not true artificial intelligence, since it involves directly imbuing the computer with the necessary algorithms. Second, such techniques only amount to recognizing a key and deliberately distinct feature, which is quite different from recognizing _oneself_. Third, such techniques would only amount to recognizing a given object. The computer must do more than that; it must come to the realization that the given object _is actually its very own self_. > [@](#): > > **I’m not an expert on pattern and image recognition algorithms, but it doesn’t seem so far-fetched that a computer system could accomplish this task, even without being able to pass the Turing Test.** I’ve had a great deal of experience in such matters, and while pattern recognition algorithms do exist, they all require fairly tightly controlled circumstances – especially where visual input is concerned. Moreover, none of these algorithms imbue the computer with a sense of “self” – of recognizing that an object is oneself – unless this capability is directly hard-coded into the pattern matching routines. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2002, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-ai-possible/108885/94 "2002-05-17T18:03:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > **JThunder: We don’t know. In fact, when a computer does do this we probably won’t be too sure either. We don’t know how _we_ do it, either, but of course the hope is that once we understand the machine we’ll understand ourselves, too.** In other words, it’s nothing but a vague hope… which ultimately demonstrates a point that I raised earlier. We can’t conclude that it must be possible, simply because we don’t know it to be impossible. That would not be a scientifically honest claim to make. In your reply, you also talked about how it might be possible to represent “the concept of a concept” numerically. I have several philosophical objections to such, not the least of which is that this involves reducing the concept to a mere number – in effect, pre-programming the concept into the computer. I think that the pursuit of true “intelligence” would require a lot more than that. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2002, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-ai-possible/108885/95 "2002-05-17T18:47:44Z")
_sigh_, then you missed my objection. the number “8” isn’t represented as a number in our heads, and it isn’t represented by a number in a computer’s machinery, either. What we call the number eight is electrical signals interpreted by other electrical signals, producing electrical and electromagnetic effects. Is there room for a concept in there? Is there no room for a concept in there but there is in _our_ heads? I’m not sure I understand your philosophical problem with preprogramming. We are preprogrammed to understand objects through interaction with a specific portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, a specific frequency band of sound waves, and a specific level of force (in touch). We also interact with certain molecules in our noses and tongues. This is all preprogrammed. So? > [@](#): > > We can’t conclude that it must be possible, simply because we don’t know it to be impossible. That would not be a scientifically honest claim to make. We don’t know _what makes a concept a concept_. As **GreyMatter** stressed several times (under the mistaken impression that we didn’t get it the first time) these terms aren’t really defined. We don’t doubt that they are there. The question then becomes: _in what circumstance could we say that a machine could have a concept?_ Turing said, “Well, if it convinces us it has a concept then that is certainly where we should start.” (well, maybe he didn’t say exactly that ;)) ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2002, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-ai-possible/108885/96 "2002-05-17T18:57:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > \*\* > Well, if one is to propose that our mathematical models of computation _can_ solve this problem, then it’s only fair to “look inside the box.” > \*\* Well, it’s one thing to talk about how an algorithm solves a problem. It’s another thing to require that a computer “knows” or “feels.” We can discuss how a computer might meet a challenge. But, for reasons presented so eloquently by Mr. Turing, the challenge itself should present the device with an input or set of inputs, and look at the device’s output. > [@](#): > > \*\*I don’t think that’s satisfactory. For one thing, that would basically amount to _programming_ the device to recognize itself – and as we discussed earlier, that’s not true artificial intelligence, since it involves directly imbuing the computer with the necessary algorithms. \*\* I don’t see why that’s cheating - if the program accomplishes the task, then what’s the problem? \*\* > [@](#): > > Second, such techniques only amount to recognizing a key and deliberately distinct feature, which is quite different from recognizing _oneself_. > \*\* How do you think you recognize yourself? It’s not a conscious process, but there can be little doubt that, on a sub-conscious level, you are looking at each feature and comparing it to a mental image of yourself. I agree that I gave our hypothetical computer a deliberately distinct feature, but that was only to level the playing field, since computers can be likened to sets of identical twins. So I don’t think this is a critical point. In any event, I’m not sure what you mean by saying “recognizing _oneself_,” as if there is something metaphysical about it. You observe an image, and you either conclude “yeah, that’s me” or “no, that’s not me” \*\* > [@](#): > > Third, such techniques would only amount to recognizing a given object. The computer must do more than that; it must come to the realization that the given object _is actually its very own self_.\*\* If the computer outputted something like “yeah, that’s me,” would you believe that it had come to that realization? What if your friend looked at a picture of himself and said “yeah that’s me”? See, we’ll never know the inner consciousness/feelings of AI Devices. So there’s not much point in worrying about them. If they process input and give intelligent output, that’s all we should care about in deciding whether we have AI or not. \*\* > [@](#): > > I’ve had a great deal of experience in such matters, and while pattern recognition algorithms do exist, they all require fairly tightly controlled circumstances – especially where visual input is concerned.\*\* I agree, but with more programming and more processing power, those circumstances can be broadened, no? \*\* > [@](#): > > Moreover, none of these algorithms imbue the computer with a sense of “self” – of recognizing that an object is oneself – unless this capability is directly hard-coded into the pattern matching routines. \*\* See, I think that the Device’s “sense of ‘self’” is irelevant. How do you know whether anyone besides you has a “sense of ‘self’”? If somebody built a working AI Device, how would you know that it does not have a “sense of ‘self’”? **What specific test would you give it to decide?** ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2002, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-ai-possible/108885/97 "2002-05-17T19:17:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > **_sigh_, then you missed my objection. the number “8” isn’t represented as a number in our heads, and it isn’t represented by a number in a computer’s machinery, either. What we call the number eight is electrical signals interpreted by other electrical signals, producing electrical and electromagnetic effects. Is there room for a concept in there? Is there no room for a concept in there but there is in _our_ heads?** I fully understood your point. However, the very questions that you raise underscore the weakness of the hard A.I. position. We don’t know how a concept might be formed within one’s electrical interactions, and so it’s foolish to presume that this CAN be done using computer circuitry. Once again, the burden of proof would rest on those who claim that it can be done. > [@](#): > > **I’m not sure I understand your philosophical problem with preprogramming. We are preprogrammed to understand objects through interaction with a specific portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, a specific frequency band of sound waves, and a specific level of force (in touch). We also interact with certain molecules in our noses and tongues. This is all preprogrammed.** No, they aren’t. These are things that we _learn_ how to do, just as infants learn such concepts as object permanence and the significance of their reflections. Therein lies the difference. Unlike computer programming, human intelligence is an _emergent_ quality. There may be an element of preprogramming involved – the optic nerves being properly wired to the visual centers of the cortex, for example – but much of what we consider to be “intelligence” emerges throughout life. Consider a desktop PC, for example. We can give it the capability to understand a Microsoft Word document, simply by loading the appropriate software (i.e. by pre-programming it). Does this constitute true intelligence, though? No self-respecting cognitive psychologist would claim that it does. There is a _very_ limited sense in which computers can learn, through neural networks and similar procedures. However, such techniques don’t impress me as examples of genuine intelligence. A successful neural network, for example, gives the appearance of “learning,” but in reality, it is hardwired in a very specific and deliberate way, so as to ensure that its self-adjustments will (probably) yield a satisfactory result. Ditto for inference-based schemes and other traditional forms of A.I. Moreover, pattern recognition is but a tiny component of intelligence – one which even lower animals can perform, in their own special ways. What about learning new skills, such as the ability to write entertaining and profound novels? What about learning novel ideas in one’s field, such as science or art? What about _learning_ abstract concepts (such as the sense of self), instead of having these directly pre-programmed into one’s data structures? For that matter, what about learning to compose intelligent, well-researched and persuasive arguments regarding the nature of human intelligence? For these reasons, and more, I think it is rather foolish to assert that our computational models must surely be up to the task of developing true intelligence. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2002, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-ai-possible/108885/98 "2002-05-17T20:19:36Z")
> [@](#): > > However, the very questions that you raise underscore the weakness of the hard A.I. position. I don’t see how. The strong AI position is that intelligence is revealed through complicated algorithms, including our own. There are some interesting arguments against algorithmic behavior representing intelligence. That’s fine. What does this have to do with AI, exactly? > [@](#): > > We don’t know how a concept might be formed within one’s electrical interactions, and so it’s foolish to presume that this CAN be done using computer circuitry. We measured temperature before we knew that heat was caused by molecular motion. Any other proposition flies right in the face of all scientific inquiry. > [@](#): > > Once again, the burden of proof would rest on those who claim that it can be done. We know. That’s why we are _asking our detractors to develop a test that would convince them_. We already know what would convince _us_. (not that I am a supporter of strong AI) > [@](#): > > These are things that we learn how to do, just as infants learn such concepts as object permanence and the significance of their reflections. I didn’t learn to see blue as blue. My eyes gave me no choice. > [@](#): > > Unlike computer programming, human intelligence is an emergent quality. I am so utterly confused by this statement that I don’t even know where to _begin_ trying to understand it. ~Do you mean that programs aren’t getting more complicated? ~Do you mean that research in artificial intelligence isn’t searching for the creation of more complicated learning algorithms? ~Do you mean that humans don’t have a learning process, that intelligence just “happens”? ~Do you mean “if it can be expressed in an algorithm then it isn’t learning”? ~Do you mean that computers can _never_ act in a manner that would convince you it is intelligent? > [@](#): > > A successful neural network, for example, gives the appearance of “learning,” but in reality, it is hardwired in a very specific and deliberate way, so as to ensure that its self-adjustments will (probably) yield a satisfactory result. A beautiful description of the human brain if I ever read one. ---
**Author:** ![dalovindj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/65b543/32.png) [@dalovindj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalovindj)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2002, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-ai-possible/108885/99 "2002-05-17T20:42:44Z")
Nice **eris**. DaLovin’ Dj ---
**Author:** ![Phoenix\_Dragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/65b543/32.png) [@Phoenix\_Dragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phoenix_Dragon)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2002, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-ai-possible/108885/100 "2002-05-18T03:28:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > **At this point, I would consider that to be a gross assumption. In fact, many people – including a great number of scientists – believe that human beings are MORE than just their material bodies. Many scientists and philosophers also believe that a supernatural component (i.e. the soul) is the best way to explain such phenomena as emotion and free will.** A great number of scientists? I have a very hard time believing that non-natural elements are commonly accepted as valid scientific reasoning. Havn’t seen anything about supernatural components in biology, chemestry, physics, etc. And of course, from the scientific POV: Where’s the proof? And, um… Is it just me, or does requiring non-natural (supernatural) components for “natural” intelligence seem a little odd? In any case, there are neural nets and other learning computers right now. Chances are, if (when) AI is developed, it will most likely be created first as a relatively simple learning program as a basis, and taught much as a human would. And IIRC, there are already projects under way doing just this, and showing that computers can learn skills, instead of just being programed to do so. With how computers continue to advance in capability (Such as, I have more computing power in my calculator than major universities did some decades ago), I imagine neural nets will most likely continue to improve further. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-ai-possible/108885.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-ai-possible/108885.md?page=6)