One thing which people outside the computing community forget is that our future overlords will have to do things like stand-up, open doors, you know stuff. They tend to forget that if you can do complex calculations in a millisecond then doing things we don't find tricky arn't a problem. In fact if computing & AI (artifical intelligence) tells is one thing, it tells us that this isn't true. This underlies the real truth of computing, that we are creating a different kind of intelligence.
The stuff we tend to take for granted - common sense, standing up, getting out of a car unaided is actually incredibly complex and tricky. We should never underestimate our abilities in this area. As soon as tasks become circumscribed then machines start to gain the advantage. We tend to underplay our ability to be flexible and general yet in many respects it is the thing which machines at least able to do.
So while we might fear machine is taking over, it's less likely than we expect. Artificial intelligence has always seen computing as the 'mind offspring' of people. From Alan Turing onwards and in the media such as Transendance, A.I. (Artifical Intellgience), 2001: A space Odyssey, Big Hero 6, Chappie, Westworld, Blade Runner, Her, Ex Machina we have always seen machine as 'synthetic person'. This is good for Hollywood - it means writers can ask questions about what it means to be a person but nothing guarantees this as an accurate model for how digital intelligence may evolve. Where computing has worked is when people and machines do what they do best.
Human computer interaction is very a much the brainchild of the late Douglas Engelbart. His vision of computing sees computing as augmenting human intellect. In effect we do what we do best, machines do what they do best. This collaboration creates a synergy. This slightly the utopian vision of computing of course doesn't generate any sexy plot problems which would appeal to Hollywood writers which is why we don't see much about it in films and TV. Yet it does seem to represent more about our lived experience of computing.
Rodney Brooks said at the robot event: "Anyone who is worried about the robot apocalypse just needs to keep their doors closed."
Ultimately our inability to realise machines difficulties handling what we regard as simple things means we greatly underestimated the problems of automating particular activities. For driving for example while it is possible to get a large number of miles with an smart cruise control driving in the city with other drivers around becomes very difficult. Google car will have to achieve something like the Turing test for driving before it can successfully replace drivers 100% of the time. Perhaps Google car is another Google glass ( over hyped ). While I have no doubt a digital car could drive itself in other digital traffic ( it's been happening at the heathrow Terminal 5 pods for a few years now), could simple but super fast reactions make up for sophisticated recognition in anticipation. For example if you're being tailgated by a heavy truck and THEN a dog runs out in front of you, clearly your own (and your passengers') safety takes precedence and the dog loses out, but if it's a child runs out you would naturally do something diffrent. While we can recognise a child vs a dog that ablity won't come to google car soon.
this says it all
No comments:
Post a Comment