Do We Want Computers That Behave Like Humans?
Computers' abilities can exceed our own. Why do we work so hard to make them more like us?
By Baruch Labunski May 13, 2022
Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.
I consume a lot of content dealing with technological advances. It's my professional field, and it's my passion as well. It's rare, though, that I'm so profoundly captivated and challenged by a podcast that I immediately begin scribbling notes for future thought experiments and article topics.
Tim Ferriss’ interview with Eric Schmidt was most definitely one of those experiences. In late 2021, Schmidt made the rounds of radio shows and podcasts promoting his latest book, The Age of AI: And Our Human Future, co-authored with Daniel P. Huttenlocher and Henry Kissinger. Schmidt explores the promises and perils of AI and its role in our current and future worlds. He answers some questions and, naturally, raises even more.
To my mind, one of the most fundamental questions Schmidt and his book raise is why we compare computers to humans at all. For example, one of Schmidt’s claims in the Ferriss interview is that computers can see better than humans, and he means that literally and definitively. He even goes on to declare that computers should be driving cars and administering medical exams. My questions are more simplistic, I suppose, but I want to know if it’s even possible for a computer to really see. Does seeing necessitate a sentient seer? And why is human sight the measure for the sight of a machine?
While Schmidt’s book forecasts the inevitable improvements in machine perception and processing that undergird AI, I think he begs an unasked question. Why is it that we regularly set up our measure of computing capability as compared to human abilities? A computer can perform mathematical calculations at tiny fractions of human speed. They can detect patterns better than we mere mortals can. They often demonstrate better predictive abilities than we do. We can all cite examples of computer failures, like labeling the image of an elephant in a room a couch, rather than a pachyderm. But the fact is that in many, if not most cases, computers do see better than we do.
We know that humans have limitations. We don’t always see or understand things clearly. We’re influenced by emotion, by fatigue and by the limits of our disappointing bodies. We’re fragile and fallible, and computers can make us less so. Computers generally, and AI specifically, let us transcend our limitations.
We know that computers’ abilities can exceed our own, at least in some circumstances. Why, then, do we work so hard to make computers — and again, more specifically AI — more human-like? Why do we want our computers to behave like humans if we’re so fallible?
Eric Schmidt’s definition of AGI is telling, in terms of the degree to which we conceptualize the development and refinement of AI in relation to human capabilities. Schmidt explains: “AGI stands for artificial general intelligence. AGI refers to computers that are human-like in their strategy and capability. Today’s computers and today’s algorithms are extraordinarily good at generating content, misinformation, guidance, helping you with science and so forth. But they’re not self-determinative. They don’t actually have the notion of "Who am I, and what what do I do next?” Paradoxically, the goal we’re driving AI toward is the very thing that fundamentally differentiates us from the computers we create.
You must be logged in to post a comment.