To create an artificial mind is no
easy task, and regardless of how far scientist have gotten in creating the
mind, we probably won’t ever have a perfect representation of a human mind. The
study of the mind isn’t biology, chemistry, or physics; it is psychology. The
field of psychology is a recent and new field compared to other sciences, so
there is still much to learn about the mind. The mind isn’t perfect and new
ideas, theories, and disorders are still discovered every year as we further
our research. As one of the scientists had said in the reading, he would have
the AI to be more of a companion or utility to help the human. That seems to be
a better prediction of the potential for AI at the moment. The human mind is
plastic (changeable/flexible) which the environment influences. The AI, in
comparison, has a limited space in its hardrive and only changes with recoding
its program.
The human
mind and the AI aren’t so different in the broader comparison. The coding that provides
the computer it understands such as the binary code can represent the neuron.
The language in an AI is stored within symbols and numbers. When needed, they
activate providing the accurate data. The neuron works in the similar way of
having certain neurons being specific to a certain memory or ideas in the brain.
With these similarities, one wonders if the real reason to make a human like AI
is to understand ourselves, but the human mind takes a lifetime to develop from
birth to death. In a religious perspective, the idea of making an AI make give
us a little taste of what it might feel to bring forth and create a new life
form.
Going back through some of the older posts, I just noticed I missed commenting on a few from the week on code... apologies! Your post here will become highly relevant again in the second week of April, when we tackle AI more completely. Until then, I highly suggest reading this recent article in The Atlantic, about how IBM's Watson is now being used to train physicians to perform better diagnoses!
ReplyDelete