The article below has solely been produced by the author projecting own views in relation to the argument presented, hence should NOT fairly be considered, addressed or referenced as a scientific material in any respect. Should the need arise, references are available upon request.
Artificial Intelligence vs. Human Intelligence
As far as concerning technology, it is advancing on a daily basis which is a fact beyond any doubt. Humanity might have been under the impression that machines will soon take over the world. Many scenarios have been created based on the superficial fact that technology, namely Artificial Intelligence (henceforth AI) might well serve for itself and indeed humanity; yet at the end of the day may turn out to be an enemy of the humans rather than being an assistant to what humans conventionally labour.
What is Artificial Intelligence?
That is a common question posed in which case many fail to elucidate. Very simply, AI is technically software that codes itself. By the definition, it even writes its own updates and renews itself. It is widely believed that this is where the confusion comes forth. The most valuable resource humans have in the universe is intelligence, which is simply information and computation; however, in order to be effective, technological intelligence has to be communicated and associated in a way that it assists humans to take advantage of the knowledge gained. The optimal way to take such advantage is a combination of human and machine intelligence working together to solve the problems that are consequential.
However, there is an ongoing discussion which seems quite popular given the fact that AI seems to be altering the way that humans live their lives searching for reliable solutions to whatever issues they encounter. Yet research shows that there is indefinite number of specific circumstances and conditions which prove that AI, that is deemed to be much smarter than humans, will not be able to take over what humanity offers within the industries they render service. A broad perception, for instance, concerns with the sophisticated nature of foresight of which only humans have possession. A machine performs any type of duty defined within the boundaries of parameters they are programmed. Although software might be able to enhance itself in case it is programmed to do so, there are still boundaries for AI to discover what remains hidden, which is the imagination and judgment only humans (or more broadly, living creatures) can process.
It would be quite fictional to predict that AI could develop and upgrade decision-making abilities which relate to how humans perfect problem-solving skills. Despite being quite sophisticated in their nature, the practices that AI is in charge of have metaphorically been quite primitive, naturally robotic and inside the boundaries of how they are coded to perform any sort of duty except the type of process requiring critical skills such as the sense of foresight, decision-making, sensitivity and imagination. The duties requiring those human capabilities may very unlikely be coded into AI in the sense that there are and will be an indefinite number of options and probabilities in effect, those of which cannot be defined by a specific number of descriptive parameters.
Some of the tech world’s most prominent visionaries have weighed in on the issue with seemingly uncharacteristic beliefs. It was once said by the popular physicists that AI could simply end mankind. Their arguments are essentially based on the probability that once computers begin to design themselves, they evolve much faster than human being do, which will result in AI being able to take over. Therefore, humans having to evolve by the traditional route will not be able to keep up by any means. It might sound quite probable when it is said, yet quite impossible to say the least, which is why it is fundamentally incorrect. The notion of the field of AI, which was humans who are trying to get computers to do things that have traditionally been the domain and the province of humans, is the idea itself that scares a lot of people. It feels scary, but it should not be given that there is a common misunderstanding.
The main concern that can be summarised under the heading of the alignment problem, which is a saying amongst those believing that AI might go wrong. Here, there are really two angles with AI that visited on any powerful technology. The first is a very usual situation which is just the obvious case of people using that technology intentionally in ways that might significantly cause great harm. The second and the more interesting concern is the unintended consequences. The situation with that is even good people with the best of intentions may wind up committing great harms because the technology is such that it does not more reliably conform to the best intentions of good people. This perception is, thusly, what might have caused a huge misunderstanding fuelled by the fictional scenarios that are too convincing to be true.
Another perspective is that the AI is always considered to be a deadly enemy mostly in the sense that the machines will highly likely intend to slay humans for a reason which, more often, remains almost quite unspecified. Research shows that AI, the machines and software developed, are analysing and storing data in various industries and assisting humans to evaluate with ease. Nonetheless, learning from the data and indeed specifically analysing to convert them into definitive information in order to take an action by pure judgment upon what is right or wrong seem to require further skills which, as it were, defines discernment.
The fields and the industries are changing, so are the critiques of AI. The only hope of really solving the essential issues humans encounter is putting together teams of the best minds. The best minds will necessarily include humans and computers. Because humans together working with machines will certainly be able to carry out better than either one of them may do alone in today’s world. Regarding the relationship between humans and machines, the central issue, therefore, seems not to be the probability of machines taking over; it is, instead, merely how to achieve the right balance between humans and AI to optimise outcomes in a most efficient way.