Anybody who has interacted with Siri or Google knows that computers are still a long way from fully comprehending the human language. These computers still need to get a better understanding of the human language. Expert developers, therefore, must create computer systems that must be trained using problems that challenge humankind to reflect and fully relate to a human being. Nonetheless, the ultimate goal of artificial intelligence is to get to a point in which the machine can fully understand humankind and interpret meaning from complex passages (Chui et al.,2016). With innovations such as Siri, we can already tell that the goal seems closer than we may have thought it to be. This paper aims at depicting correlation and differences between humans and computers and how this relationship remains beneficial to both parties.
It is generally assumed that the advanced artificial intelligence in the 1900s came to be because of the advent of high-speed machines. Therefore, the primary aim of AI is to implement information into computers. Engineers hence reason that such a goal is inseparably linked with the advent of these intelligent devices. Today, logical AI forms part of the artificial intelligence, which can be traced back to the theory of syllogism by Aristotle (Connor, 2019).
However, along these lines, Aristotle defines intelligence as the rational soul, also best described as the environment of human intellect (Connor, 2019). Nonetheless, a soul can, in turn, perceive a sensitive state and a vegetative state. Hence, disqualifying artificial intelligence from complete intellect and classifying it under partial intelligence. According to Aristotle, Understanding artificial intelligence was quite prescient. According to “Metaphysics” Aristotle describes man’s greatest desire as a need to know. Therefore, the first step in the knowledge of AI perceives through senses (Connor, 2019).
On this point, we inevitably deduce that understanding of any artificial intelligence is complicated. Any philosopher who theorizes on it would suggest that the best kind of intelligence is that which can think for itself. Therefore, the intelligence can hence perform complex function from algorithms and data fed to it. Thus, providing solutions that would accordingly take an individual a very long time to deduce.
Moreover, a different philosophical concern is whether or not it is a possibility to build a super-intelligence machine. As we can tell from the development of Siri, we understand that indeed it is possible. Nevertheless, the whether-possible problems lie with the intersection of theories of the sematic contents of the nature of computation and thoughts. Hence begs the question should a working computer have a body (Atkins, n.d.). Should they use continuous or discrete modes of computing? Therefore taking us to the big questions of whether turning them off can be considered murder. Or whether it would be immoral for the computers to work for humans if they raced. Lastly, whether it is moral for humans to build machines in the first place.
Nonetheless, According to “Selfhood and Computers” it would be a rational call to admit that computers cannot be regarded as selves just as humankind at the moment. Therefore, we are not obligated to grant these machines rights and privileges. Neither do we have to refrain from turning them off when necessary. Nonetheless, if there comes an intelligence that was a self, then perhaps humankind ought to grant its rights and privileges (Atkins, n.d.).
Besides, currently, we can deny the possibility of computers ever becoming like human beings. That is, even if they were fed with similar data of desires, beliefs, thoughts, and memories. The human mind and that of the computer would immediately diverge. The computer would move on to create different memories, desires, beliefs, and experiences. That, on the very least, would be a perfect indicator of the differences between humans and computers.
However, there are critiques of the above theory. That is if, at one point in time, the computer took away one’s beliefs, experiences, thoughts, desires, and memories. Then it can be deduced that the computer managed to take away the person’s individuality and selfhood. A person can only be described to be themselves because of the above traits (Atkins, n.d.).
Therefore, if these experiences are taken and shared with the computer’s processor, then one’s selfhood also moves with the computer (Atkins, n.d.). However, an individual’s thoughts and beliefs are stored in the brain. Therefore it is not the thoughts that make the person who he is instead it is the brain. The mind is equivalent to the processor of the computer, and that is where all data fed is processed. Hence, it is the brain that makes an individual who they are and not necessarily their thoughts
Secondly, if it were a possibility to make a computer a self, then how come there isn’t one made yet. Funds have been poured into the intelligence systems development for years and therefore, cannot be a deterrent. The improvements in intelligence are significant as compared to a century ago.
Nevertheless, with all these significant steps, computers are still unable to replace humankind completely. Therefore, it makes us support the argument. Computers are very useful machines that have revolutionized the world. Artificial intelligence and automation are the next big this in the coming decade. However, they cannot become just like human beings.
However, a technophile would cringe at the arguments presents in this paper. They would argue that these computer weaknesses are only a matter of time until they are resolved. Well, considering the exponential growth at which computers are growing, that point of reasoning would not be far from the truth. However, the primary constraint of a computer’s ability to imitate human thoughts is not so much as having memory capacity and processor speeds as it is their lack of being. Notably and without a doubt, even the world’s smartest computers are entirely hopeless when tested outside of their expertise. Thus, they remain prisoners of coding (Cellan-Jones, 2014). While they thrive at obtaining remarkable precision, they are also limited by narrowness in perception.
The real danger that humankind faces is the dependency on the computer automation. Humankind is more inclined in the belief that automated computers provide an adequate substitute for their intelligence. Hence, they are willing to hand over primary functions to software programs and accept subservient roles for themselves. When engineers design automated systems, their primary focus is those of the technology instead of those of the people. They, therefore, end up transferring much of the work to the software. In turn, humans are left with passive tasks such as monitoring readouts and entering data.
Studies carried out recently on the effects of automation revealed how easily skilled personnel could lose such skill due to deadening reliance on computers. The phenomenon in which workers trust of software programs to handle any arising challenges is known as automation complacency. The results of this phenomenon are that they lose attention to details and their skills and talents wither. In the US, the Federal Aviation Administration confessed to having evidence of pilots losing manual flying abilities (Hoc, 2012). Therefore, in some cases has led to accidents. Hence, a new directive was given to the pilots to turn off autopilot and practice a more manual approach to flying. Other professionals like radiologists and accountants have also shown signs of lack of skills caused by increased automation.
Nonetheless, machines can be used positively. If designed and utilized in the manner intended, they can open endless possibilities. Computers, without a doubt, have made work more manageable. Therefore, with correct modifications, they can help humanity solve complex problems that would have proven to be rather challenging. However, if humans ignore the warning signs of automation and stick to the same path, they will doom humanity to the erosion of skills. As a result, the notion being debated whether algorithms are smarter than humanity will become self-fulfilling. Humanity will have condemned himself to an eternity of dependency on a human-made technology. Therefore, humankind should respect their talents more. That calls for the constant practice of these talents as practice makes perfect. The most important thing to remember is that machines are meant to improve the lives of its creator. Therefore, letting it get to the point of no return through dependency is not necessary. Another essential thing to remember is that there is no competition between man and machines. What exists is a collaboration between the two (Hoc, 2012).
Atkins, R. Kenneth. Selfhood and Computers .Pdf.
Cellan-Jones, R. (2014). Stephen Hawking warns artificial intelligence could end mankind. BBC news, 2, 2014.
Chui, M., Manyika, J., & Miremadi, M. (2016). Where machines could replace humans—and where they can’t (yet). McKinsey Quarterly, 30(2), 1-9.
Connor, E, Marie. (2019). Metaphysics. St. John University.
Hoc, J. M. (2012). From human–machine interaction to human–machine cooperation. Ergonomics, 43(7), 833-843.