Agreed. The mystification of what computers do is a worrying trend.
For now, at least, computers can't do anything at all interesting or remarkable. They can, however, do boring things really really fast. And lots of boring things, done really really fast, can yield some pretty impressive results.
But it doesn't change the fact that what computers actually do is utterly trivial. Anything interesting they achieve is the result of algorithms programmed by very intelligent and sophisticated human beings.
That's a clear, qualitative difference from any real AI. When computers are creative, when they start doing things that haven't been done before, without the direct programming of any human, then a computer can truly be said to be "in control."
The mystification of what computers do is a worrying trend.
Trend? When have the masses ever had a clear grasp on computation? Quoth Babbage:
On two occasions I have been asked,—"Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" In one case a member of the Upper, and in the other a member of the Lower, House put this question. I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
I agree mystification of computation is not something we should encourage, but I don't think that's really what is happening in this article. The things that computers do today are not utterly trivial, the algorithms are getting more complex every day and there is some evidence that some of the very complex probabilistic structures being built have corollaries in the human brain.
We have already passed the point where all computers are being directly programmed by a human being to perform an exact task. Things like google, and Wolfram Alpha and Netflix are following instructions designed by humans that describe complex behaviors and even reasoning, not the particular outcomes they yield. These instructions are far beyond listing steps for a robot to pick up a cup off a table.
Are the machines being creative? No. But, how would we know if they were, we don't even know what that means.
Are they 'in control'? No. No more than your bicycle is in control when you stop pedaling and take your hands off the handle bars. It has no will, it just keep going, just like google's servers. But, do we know enough about what intelligence (or sentience, which is what everyone is actually talking about here) is in order to answer that question if the answer ever changes?
How complex does something have to be in order for us to consider it 'intelligent' and what kind of complexity will it need to have?
> When computers are creative, when they start doing things that haven't been done before, without the direct programming of any human, then a computer can truly be said to be "in control."
For now, at least, computers can't do anything at all interesting or remarkable. They can, however, do boring things really really fast. And lots of boring things, done really really fast, can yield some pretty impressive results.
But it doesn't change the fact that what computers actually do is utterly trivial. Anything interesting they achieve is the result of algorithms programmed by very intelligent and sophisticated human beings.
That's a clear, qualitative difference from any real AI. When computers are creative, when they start doing things that haven't been done before, without the direct programming of any human, then a computer can truly be said to be "in control."