# Artificial Intelligence Quotation Curation **Domain:** Artificial intelligence / quotation research / Reminder routing **Doc Type:** Research Curation Dossier **Maturity:** Developed **Source hub:** [[wiki/Artificial Intelligence|Artificial Intelligence]] ## Purpose This research dossier preserves the full quotation and Reminder route formerly embedded in the canonical Artificial Intelligence entry. Each linked Reminder carries its own wording, attribution, source context, publication route, and reciprocal topic links. The canonical wiki page retains six historically anchored excerpts and routes the wider curation record here. ## Complete Quotation Route > “I think that what we're doing now is in a sense, creating our own successors. We have seen the first crude beginnings of artificial intelligence.” > **— Arthur C. Clarke**, *NOVA, The Mind Machines, originally broadcast March 22, 1978* [[reminders/Machine Succession/Humanity Is Creating Its Own AI Successors by Arthur C. Clarke|Humanity Is Creating Its Own AI Successors by Arthur C. Clarke]] > "Something about discussion of artificial intelligence appears to displace human intelligence." > **— Neil Gershenfeld**, *2015, Edge annual question “What Do You Think About Machines That Think?”* [[reminders/Machine Succession/AI Debate Can Displace Human Intelligence by Neil Gershenfeld|AI Debate Can Displace Human Intelligence by Neil Gershenfeld]] > "The rapid advance of AIs also is changing our understanding of what constitutes intelligence." > **— Paul Saffo**, *2015, Edge annual question “What Do You Think About Machines That Think?”* [[reminders/Information/AI Is Changing What Intelligence Means by Paul Saffo|AI Is Changing What Intelligence Means by Paul Saffo]] > "People assume that AI or machines that think will have intelligence that is alien to our own, but that's not possible." > **— Douglas Coupland**, *2015, Edge annual question “What Do You Think About Machines That Think?”* [[reminders/Machine Succession/Artificial Intelligence Cannot Be Alien to Human Intelligence by Douglas Coupland|Artificial Intelligence Cannot Be Alien to Human Intelligence by Douglas Coupland]] > "I'm thinking about the difference between artificial intelligence and artificial life." > **— Esther Dyson**, *2015, Edge annual question “What Do You Think About Machines That Think?”* [[reminders/Machine Succession/Artificial Intelligence and Artificial Life Are Different by Esther Dyson|Artificial Intelligence and Artificial Life Are Different by Esther Dyson]] > "SETI is uniformitarian in its assumption that all alien intelligence would be the same, namely, like human intelligence (but smarter, of course)." > **— Ian Bogost**, *2015, Edge annual question “What Do You Think About Machines That Think?”* [[reminders/Machine Succession/SETI Assumes Alien Intelligence Resembles Ours by Ian Bogost|SETI Assumes Alien Intelligence Resembles Ours by Ian Bogost]] > “Imagine an artificial intelligence, with human-like insight, contemplating her own blueprint. What would she make of it? I think it's overwhelmingly likely that among her first thoughts would be how to begin making improvements. This processor could be faster, that memory more capacious—and, above all, the reward system more rewarding!” > **— Frank Wilczek**, *2014, Edge Annual Question, “What Scientific Idea Is Ready For Retirement?”* [[reminders/AI Control/A Self-aware AI Would Immediately Redesign Itself by Frank Wilczek|A Self-aware AI Would Immediately Redesign Itself by Frank Wilczek]] > “Artificial intelligence and robotics too will show many new developments. But this is probably advances in the second category since a lot of the real news about the role of automation will occur behind the scenes, where technology will make some tasks we already do simpler or more effective or where technology will replace workers and reduce or at the very least dramatically change the nature of employment. We’ll read about drones and medical robotics and advances in AI but those factory robots won’t be big news, except to the families who find themselves on unemployment lines and perhaps for a few days on the business pages.” > **— Lisa Randall**, *2016, Edge Annual Question, “What Do You Consider The Most Interesting Recent [Scientific] News? What Makes It Important?”* [[reminders/AI Control/AI Breakthroughs Become Invisible Infrastructure by Lisa Randall|AI Breakthroughs Become Invisible Infrastructure by Lisa Randall]] > “The sectors include mobility, sensors, cloud computing, and data analysis, whether by machine learning or artificial intelligence. Sensors don’t just give us new information about nature and society, they inform the configuration of cloud systems, and the behavior of the analysis algorithms is likewise affected by the success with which it alters the other two.” > **— Quentin Hardy**, *2016, Edge Annual Question, “What Do You Consider The Most Interesting Recent [Scientific] News? What Makes It Important?”* [[reminders/AI Control/AI Sensors and Cloud Systems Are Converging into One Feedback Loop by Quentin Hardy|AI Sensors and Cloud Systems Are Converging into One Feedback Loop by Quentin Hardy]] > “The first class of stories is about the science, where many researchers are now vocally pointing out that there is a lot more science to be done in order to come up with learning algorithms that mimic the broad capabilities of humans and animals. Deep learning by itself will not solve many of the learning problems that are necessary for general Artificial Intelligence, for instance where spatial or deductive reasoning is involved. Further, all the breakthrough results we have seen in AI have been years in the making, and there is no scientific reason to expect there to be a sudden and sustained series of them, despite the enthusiasm from young researchers who were not around of the last three waves of such predictions in the 1950's, 1960's, and 1980's.” > **— Rodney A. Brooks**, *2016, Edge Annual Question, “What Do You Consider The Most Interesting Recent [Scientific] News? What Makes It Important?”* [[reminders/AI Control/AI Still Needs New Scientific Breakthroughs by Rodney A. Brooks|AI Still Needs New Scientific Breakthroughs by Rodney A. Brooks]] > “As for our place in nature, so too for our relationship with technology. Recent progress in artificial intelligence and bionics, in particular, have led to a great deal of soul-searching about who—or what—is in charge, and even what it means to be human. The industrial revolution saw machines replace human physical labor, but now that they are replacing mental labor too, what will be left for people to do? Even those who don't fear for their jobs might be angry when they discover that their new boss is an algorithm.” > **— Timo Hannay**, *2016, Edge Annual Question, “What Do You Consider The Most Interesting Recent [Scientific] News? What Makes It Important?”* [[reminders/Machine Succession/AI and Bionics Are Redefining Who Is in Charge by Timo Hannay|AI and Bionics Are Redefining Who Is in Charge by Timo Hannay]] > “I believe that we will see within our lifetime the convergence of developments in artificial intelligence, knowledge representation, statistical grammar theories, and an emerging field — computational anthropology (informatic-based analysis and modeling of cultural values) — that will facilitate powerful new forms of machine translation to match the dreams of early pioneers of computation.” > **— Daniel L. Everett**, *2009, Edge Annual Question, “What Will Change Everything?”* [[reminders/AI Control/AI and Knowledge Representation Are Converging by Daniel L. Everett|AI and Knowledge Representation Are Converging by Daniel L. Everett]] > “For a long time my optimism centered on computing in general, and what kinds of benefits it might bring us. Events have shown I entertained far too modest an optimism—I'm embarrassed to say that the impact of the Internet, in particular the World Wide Web, eluded me completely at first. A few years ago, I returned to artificial intelligence, which I'd written about early on, and then gone away from. Press narratives were uncritical about the field's death throes, and I expected to write an elegy. Instead, I found a revelation. Artificial intelligence is not only robustly healthy, building on its very significant gains since I first wrote about it, but the field's present ambitions burst with, well, vitality.” > **— Pamela McCorduck**, *2007, Edge Annual Question, “What Are You Optimistic About?”* [[reminders/AI Control/Artificial Intelligence Returned with a New Set of Questions by Pamela McCorduck|Artificial Intelligence Returned with a New Set of Questions by Pamela McCorduck]] > “Soon we will be building not only Artificial Intelligence. We will be building Artificial Will. Systems with an ability to convert internal decisions and values into external change. They will be able to decide that they want to change the world. A plan inside becomes an action on the outside. So they will have to know what is inside and outside.” > **— Tor Nørretranders**, *2009, Edge Annual Question, “What Will Change Everything?”* [[reminders/AI Control/Artificial Intelligence Will Become Artificial Will by Tor Nørretranders|Artificial Intelligence Will Become Artificial Will by Tor Nørretranders]] > “Most importantly, the prioritized cultivation of high-quality training datasets might allow an order-of-magnitude speedup in AI breakthroughs over purely algorithmic advances. For example, we might already possess the algorithms and hardware that will enable machines in a few years to author human-level long-form creative compositions, complete standardized human examinations, or even pass the Turing Test, if only we trained them with the right writing, examination, and conversational datasets. Additionally, the nascent problem of ensuring AI friendliness might be addressed by focusing on dataset rather than algorithmic friendliness—a potentially simpler approach.” > **— Alexander Wissner-Gross**, *2016, Edge Annual Question, “What Do You Consider The Most Interesting Recent [Scientific] News? What Makes It Important?”* [[reminders/AI Control/Better Datasets May Accelerate AI by an Order of Magnitude by Alexander Wissner-Gross|Better Datasets May Accelerate AI by an Order of Magnitude by Alexander Wissner-Gross]] > “A physicist at CERN said to me recently that they likely wouldn't have built a new $8 billion collider if there was a better way of moving the field forward. The Blue Brain Project is using supercomputers to construct a mind because the neuroscientists involved believe it is the best way of attaining an overall understanding of the brain. Robots, I now appreciate, are not simply novelty items or tools of automation, but can be a way of gaining unique insight into humans. From simulation to supercomputing, technology is now (or at least I now see) one of science's very best friends (I could say the same for the arts). And the design, magnitude, and complexity of these technological feats satisfy my (and our) need for romance in our pursuit of truth.” > **— Adam Bly**, *2008, Edge Annual Question, “What Have You Changed Your Mind About? Why?”* [[reminders/Simulation/Building Minds in Computers May Be the Best Way to Understand Brains by Adam Bly|Building Minds in Computers May Be the Best Way to Understand Brains by Adam Bly]] > “Bill Joy, the prominent computer scientist, argued in a Wired article last year that "the future doesn't need us" because other creatures, artificial or just post-human, are going to take over the world in the 21st century. He is worried that various technologies — particularly robotics, genetic engineering and nanotechnology — are soon going to be capable of generating either a self-conscious machine (something like the Internet "waking up") or one capable of self-replication (nanotechnologists inspired by the vision of Eric Drexler are currently attempting to create a nano-scaled "universal assembler"). If either of these events came to pass, it would surely introduce major changes in the planetary ecology, and humans would have to find a new role to play in such a world. But is Joy right? Do we have to worry about mad scientists producing some invention that inadvertently renders us second-class citizens to machines in the next couple of decades? (Joy is so distraught by this prospect he would have everyone stop working in these areas.)” > **— Robert Aunger**, *2002, Edge Annual Question, “What Is Your Question? ... Why?”* [[reminders/AI Control/Can Technology Wake up and Come Alive by Robert Aunger|Can Technology Wake up and Come Alive by Robert Aunger]] > “In cultural terms, old questions about machine intelligence has given way to a question not about the machines but about us: What kind of relationships is it appropriate to have with a machine? It is significant that this question has become relevant in a day-to-day sense during a period of unprecedented human redefinition through genomics and psychopharmacology, fields that along with robotics, encourage us to ask not only whether machines will be able to think like people, but whether people have always thought like machines.” > **— Sherry Turkle**, *2001, Edge Annual Question, “What Questions Have Disappeared?”* [[reminders/AI Control/Can You Have an Artificial Intelligence by Sherry Turkle|Can You Have an Artificial Intelligence by Sherry Turkle]] > “Next node foment can also be seen in areas of current conflict in scientific theories, where two elegant high-order paradigms with explanative power are themselves in competition, uncomfortable coexistence, or broken symmetry fomenting towards a larger explanatory paradigm. Some examples include a grand unified theory to unify the general theory of relativity with electromagnetism, mathematical theories that include both power laws and randomness, and a behavioral theory of beyond-human level intelligence that includes both computronium and aesthetics (e.g.; does AI do art, solely compute, or is there no distinction at that level of cosmic navel-gazing?).” > **— Melanie Swan**, *2012, Edge Annual Question, “What Is Your Favorite Deep, Elegant, Or Beautiful Explanation?”* [[reminders/Machine Succession/Competing Paradigms Can Foment a Larger Theory by Melanie Swan|Competing Paradigms Can Foment a Larger Theory by Melanie Swan]] > “What could a neuron "want"? The energy and raw materials it needs to thrive–just like its unicellular eukaryote ancestors and more distant cousins, the bacteria and archaea. Neurons are robots; they are certainly not conscious in any rich sense–remember, they are eukaryotic cells, akin to yeast cells or fungi. If individual neurons are conscious then so is athlete’s foot. But neurons are, like these mindless but intentional cousins, highly competent agents in a life-or-death struggle, not in the environment between your toes, but in the demanding environment of the brain, where the victories go to those cells that can network more effectively, contribute to more influential trends at the virtual machine levels where large-scale human purposes and urges are discernible.” > **— Daniel C. Dennett**, *2008, Edge Annual Question, “What Have You Changed Your Mind About? Why?”* [[reminders/AI Control/Competition in the Brain by Daniel C. Dennett|Competition in the Brain by Daniel C. Dennett]] > “To me, having my worldview entirely altered is among the most fun parts of science. One mind-altering event occurred during graduate school. I was studying the field of Artificial Intelligence with a focus on Natural Language Processing. At that time there were intense arguments amongst computer scientists, psychologists, and philosophers about how to represent concepts and knowledge in computers, and if those representations reflected in any realistic way how people represented knowledge. Most researchers thought that language and concepts should be represented in a diffuse manner, distributed across myriad brain cells in a complex network. But some researchers talked about the existence of a "grandmother cell," meaning that one neuron in the brain (or perhaps a concentrated group of neurons) was entirely responsible for representing the concept of, say, your grandmother. I thought this latter view was hogwash.” > **— Marti Hearst**, *2008, Edge Annual Question, “What Have You Changed Your Mind About? Why?”* [[reminders/AI Control/Computational Analysis of Language Requires Understanding Language by Marti Hearst|Computational Analysis of Language Requires Understanding Language by Marti Hearst]] > “Rising computer power led to the first large break with the math-model approach in various species of artificial intelligence. Computer scientists programmed expert-system search trees directly from words. Some put uncertainty math models on the trees but the tree structure itself used words or text strings. The non-numerical structure let experts directly encode their expertise in verbal rules. That removed the old math models but still left the problem of literally doing only what the expert or modeler said to do. Adaptive fuzzy rule-based systems allowed experts to state rules in words while the fuzzy system itself remained numeric. Data could in principle overcome modeler bias by adapting the rule structure in new directions as the data poured in. That reduced expert or modeler input to little more than giving initial conditions and occasional updates to the inference structure. Still all these AI tree-based knowledge systems suffer from the curse of dimensionality in some form of combinatorial rule explosion.” > **— Bart Kosko**, *2007, Edge Annual Question, “What Are You Optimistic About?”* [[reminders/AI Control/Computer Power Broke AI Away from Mathematical Models by Bart Kosko|Computer Power Broke AI Away from Mathematical Models by Bart Kosko]] > “Experts on short term memory and neural network modelers with tell this story for us. As it unfolds, it will explain the emergence of a subjective present and let us understand how conscious experience, in its simplest and most essential form, is the presence of a world.” > **— Thomas Metzinger**, *2005, Edge Annual Question, “What Do You Believe Is True Even Though You Cannot Prove It?”* [[reminders/AI Control/Conscious Experience Emerges as the Presence of a World by Thomas Metzinger|Conscious Experience Emerges as the Presence of a World by Thomas Metzinger]] > “Over the past few years, a raft of classic challenges in artificial intelligence which had stood unsolved for decades were conquered, almost without warning, through an approach long disparaged by AI purists for its "statistical" flavor: it's essentially about learning probability distributions from large volumes of data, rather than examining humans' problem-solving techniques and attempting to encode them in executable form. The formidable tasks it has solved range from object classification and speech recognition, to generating descriptive captions for photos and synthesizing images in the style of famous artists—even guiding robots to perform tasks for which they were never programmed!” > **— David Dalrymple**, *2016, Edge Annual Question, “What Do You Consider The Most Interesting Recent [Scientific] News? What Makes It Important?”* [[reminders/AI Control/Differentiable Programming Is Rewriting Artificial Intelligence by David Dalrymple|Differentiable Programming Is Rewriting Artificial Intelligence by David Dalrymple]] > “The search so far has been met only by a great silence, but as astronomers continue their hunt for intelligent neighbors, computer scientists are determined to create them. Artificial intelligence research has been underway for decades and a few AIs have arguably already passed the Turing Test. Apply the exponential logic of Moore’s Law and the arrival of strong AI in the next few decades seems inevitable. We will have robots smart enough to talk to, and so emotionally appealing that people will demand the right to marry them.” > **— Paul Saffo**, *2009, Edge Annual Question, “What Will Change Everything?”* [[reminders/AI Control/Discovery or Creation of Non-human Intelligence Cures Humankind's Existential Loneliness by Paul Saffo|Discovery or Creation of Non-human Intelligence Cures Humankind's Existential Loneliness by Paul Saffo]] > “We will build driverless cars and they will come with a moral compass—literally. The same will be true of our robot companions. They’ll have values and will necessarily be moral machines and ethical automata, whose morals and ethics are engineered by us. “The Trolley Problem” is a gedankenexperiment for our age, shining a bright light on the complexities of engineering our new world of humans and machines.” > **— Daniel Rockmore**, *2017, Edge Annual Question, “What Scientific Term Or Concept Ought To Be More Widely Known?”* [[reminders/AI Control/Driverless Cars Will Force Us to Engineer Machine Morality by Daniel Rockmore|Driverless Cars Will Force Us to Engineer Machine Morality by Daniel Rockmore]] > “A growing number of physicists understand that the universe is not mathematical, but computational, and physics is in the business of finding an algorithm that can reproduce our observations. The switch from uncomputable, mathematical notions (such as continuous space) makes progress possible. Climate science, molecular genetics, and AI are computational sciences. Sociology, psychology, and neuroscience are not: they still seem to be confused by the apparent dichotomy between mechanism (rigid, moving parts) and the objects of their study. They are looking for social, behavioral, chemical, neural regularities, where they should be looking for computational ones.” > **— Joscha Bach**, *2016, Edge Annual Question, “What Do You Consider The Most Interesting Recent [Scientific] News? What Makes It Important?”* [[reminders/AI Control/Everything Is Computation by Joscha Bach|Everything Is Computation by Joscha Bach]] > “Lessons from evolutionary psychology indicate that developing specialized intelligences — artificial idiot savants — and networking them would achieve a mosaic AI, just as evolution gradually built natural intelligences. The essential activity is discovering sets of principles that solve a particular family of problem. Indeed, successful scientific theories are examples of specialized intelligences, whether implemented culturally among communities of researchers or implemented computationally in computer models. Similarly, adding duplicates of the specialized programs we discover in the human mind to the emerging AI network would constitute a tremendous leap toward AI. Essentially, for this aggregating intelligence to communicate with humans — for it to understand what we mean by a question or want by a request, it will have to become equipped with accurate models of the native intelligences that inhabit human minds.” > **— John Tooby**, *2009, Edge Annual Question, “What Will Change Everything?”* [[reminders/Evolution/Evolutionary Psychology Points Toward Mosaic AI by John Tooby|Evolutionary Psychology Points Toward Mosaic AI by John Tooby]] > “How many of us noticed the minor milestone when the SAT tests first permitted calculators? How many of us have participated in conversations semi-discreetly augmented by Google or text messaging? Even without invoking artificial intelligence, how far are we from commonplace augmentation of our decision-making the way we have augmented our math, memory, and muscles?” > **— George Church**, *2011, Edge Annual Question, “What Scientific Concept Would Improve Everybody's Cognitive Toolkit?”* [[reminders/AI Control/Human Decision-making Is Already Being Augmented by George Church|Human Decision-making Is Already Being Augmented by George Church]] > “When reporters interviewed me in the 70's and 80's about the possibilities for Artificial Intelligence I would always say that we would have machines that are as smart as we are within my lifetime. It seemed a safe answer since no one could ever tell me I was wrong. But I no longer believe that will happen. One reason is that I am a lot older and we are barely closer to creating smart machines.” > **— Roger Schank**, *2008, Edge Annual Question, “What Have You Changed Your Mind About? Why?”* [[reminders/AI Control/Human-level AI Remains Farther Away Than Predicted by Roger Schank|Human-level AI Remains Farther Away Than Predicted by Roger Schank]] > “What makes immersive 3D virtual environments the perfect medium for learning basic math skills is not that they are created digitally on computers. Nor is it that they are the medium of highly seductive videogames. Rather, it is because they provide a means for simulating the real world we live in, and out of which mathematics arises, and of doing so in a way that brings out and confronts the player (i.e., learner) with the underlying mathematical structure of our world. If Euclid were alive today, this is how he would teach math.” > **— Keith Devlin**, *2007, Edge Annual Question, “What Are You Optimistic About?”* [[reminders/Simulation/Immersive Simulation Can Make Mathematical Structure Visible by Keith Devlin|Immersive Simulation Can Make Mathematical Structure Visible by Keith Devlin]] > “No, I don't literally mean that we should stop believing in, or collecting, Big Data. But we should stop pretending that Big Data is magic. There are few fields that wouldn't benefit from large, carefully collected data sets. But lots of people, even scientists, put more stock in Big Data than they really should. Sometimes it seems like half the talk about understanding science these days, from physics to neuroscience, is about Big Data, and associated tools like "dimensionality reduction", "neural networks", "machine learning algorithms" and "information visualization".” > **— Gary Marcus**, *2014, Edge Annual Question, “What Scientific Idea Is Ready For Retirement?”* [[reminders/AI Control/Machine Learning Turns Data into New Forms of Understanding by Gary Marcus|Machine Learning Turns Data into New Forms of Understanding by Gary Marcus]] > “Textbooks in neuroscience, including one that I coauthored, say that memories are stored at synapses between neurons in the brain, of which there are many. In neural network models of memory, information can be stored by selectively altering the strengths of the synapses, and "spike-time dependent plasticity" at synapses in the cerebral cortex has been found with these properties. This is a hot area of research, but all we need to know here is that patterns of neural activity can indeed modify a lot of molecular machinery inside a neuron.” > **— Terrence J. Sejnowski**, *2005, Edge Annual Question, “What Do You Believe Is True Even Though You Cannot Prove It?”* [[reminders/AI Control/Memory Is Stored by Changing Synaptic Strength by Terrence J. Sejnowski|Memory Is Stored by Changing Synaptic Strength by Terrence J. Sejnowski]] > “Blind gathering of Big Data in biology continues apace, however, emphasizing transformational technologies such as machine learning—artificial neural networks, for instance—to find meaningful patterns in all the data. But no matter their "depth" and sophistication, neural nets merely fit curves to the available data. They may be capable of interpolation, but extrapolation beyond their training domain can be fraught.” > **— Roger Highfield**, *2017, Edge Annual Question, “What Scientific Term Or Concept Ought To Be More Widely Known?”* [[reminders/AI Control/Neural Networks Fit Curves to Data by Roger Highfield|Neural Networks Fit Curves to Data by Roger Highfield]] > “David Deutsch, a physicist at Oxford said: "No brain on Earth is yet close to knowing what brains do. The enterprise of achieving it artificially — the field of 'artificial intelligence' has made no progress whatever during the entire six decades of its existence." He adds that he thinks machines that think like people will happen some day.” > **— Roger Schank**, *2014, Edge Annual Question, “What Scientific Idea Is Ready For Retirement?”* [[reminders/AI Control/No Brain Yet Knows What Brains Do by Roger Schank|No Brain Yet Knows What Brains Do by Roger Schank]] > “Many recent press stories have worried that smarter robots will take away too many jobs from people. What worries me most right now is that we will not find a way to make our robots smart enough quickly enough to take up the slack in all the jobs we will need them to do over the next few decades. If we fail to build better robots soon then our standard of living and our life spans are at risk.” > **— Rodney A. Brooks**, *2013, Edge Annual Question, “What *should* We Be Worried About?”* [[reminders/AI Control/Not Enough Robots by Rodney A. Brooks|Not Enough Robots by Rodney A. Brooks]] > “Recording more and more images and corresponding brain patterns boosts the vocabulary in the individual’s visual dictionary of thought. Accuracy greatly increases with the quantity and quality of data and of the decoding algorithms. Jepsen has persuaded me that this is realisable within a decade, within the cost points of consumer electronics, and in a form that appeals to non-techies. Laborious techniques and huge, power-hungry, multi-million-dollar systems based on magnetic fields will be succeeded by optical techniques where the advantages of consumer electronics can really assert themselves; the power of AI algorithms will do the rest. This science-fiction future is not only realisable, but because of enormous potential benefits, will inevitably be realised.” > **— Peter Gabriel**, *2016, Edge Annual Question, “What Do You Consider The Most Interesting Recent [Scientific] News? What Makes It Important?”* [[reminders/AI Control/Open Water–the Internet of Visible Thought by Peter Gabriel|Open Water–the Internet of Visible Thought by Peter Gabriel]] > “Since I work in building autonomous humanoid robots reporters always ask me what will happen when the robots get really smart. Will they decide that we (us, people) are useless and stupid and take over the world from us? I have recently come to realize that this will never happen. Because there won't be any us (people) for them (pure robots) to take over from.” > **— Rodney A. Brooks**, *2000, Edge Annual Question, “What Is Today's Most Important Unreported Story?”* [[reminders/AI Control/People Are Morphing into Machines by Rodney A. Brooks|People Are Morphing into Machines by Rodney A. Brooks]] > “We are already have unmanned planes that can shoot live targets. We are seeing land robots, for both military and space applications. We are seeing networked robots performing functions in collaboration. I fear that we will see a massive increase in the deployment and quality of military robotics, and that this will lead to a perception that war is cheaper, in human terms. This, in turn, will lead democracies in general, and the United States in particular, to imagine that there are cheap wars, and to overcome the newly-learned reticence over war that we learned so dearly in Iraq.” > **— Yochai Benkler**, *2009, Edge Annual Question, “What Will Change Everything?”* [[reminders/AI Control/Recombinations of the Near Possible by Yochai Benkler|Recombinations of the Near Possible by Yochai Benkler]] > “John McCarthy, the late co-founder of the field of artificial intelligence, wrote, "He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense." It seemed incongruous that a professor who worked with esoteric high level math would be touting simple arithmetic, but he was right; in fact in many cases all we need to avoid nonsense is the simplest form of arithmetic: counting.” > **— Peter Norvig**, *2017, Edge Annual Question, “What Scientific Term Or Concept Ought To Be More Widely Known?”* [[reminders/AI Control/Refusing to Count Is an Invitation to Nonsense by Peter Norvig|Refusing to Count Is an Invitation to Nonsense by Peter Norvig]] > “For a long time, putting hope in artificial intelligence or robots has expressed an enduring technological optimism, a belief that as things go wrong, science will go right. In a complicated world, robots have always seemed like calling in the cavalry. Robots save lives in war zones; in operating rooms; they can function in deep space, in the desert, in the sea, wherever the human body would be in danger. But in the pursuit of artificial companionship, we are not looking for the feats of the cavalry but the benefits of simple salvations.” > **— Sherry Turkle**, *2014, Edge Annual Question, “What Scientific Idea Is Ready For Retirement?”* [[reminders/AI Control/Robot Companions Express Our Technological Optimism by Sherry Turkle|Robot Companions Express Our Technological Optimism by Sherry Turkle]] > “In the 1960s through the 1980s, researchers in artificial intelligence took part in what we might call the classical "great AI debates" where the central question was whether machines could be "really" intelligent. This classical debate was essentialist; the new relational objects tend to enable researchers and their public to sidestep such arguments about what is inherent in the computer. Instead, the new objects depend on what people attribute to them; they shift the focus to what the objects evoke in us. When we are asked to care for an object (the robot Kismet, the plaything Furby), when the cared-for object thrives and offers us its attention and concern, people are moved to experience that object as intelligent. Beyond this, they feel a connection to it. So the question here is not to enter a debate about whether relational objects "really" have emotions, but to reflect on a series of issues having to do with what relational artifacts evoke in the user.” > **— Sherry Turkle**, *2000, Edge Annual Question, “What Is Today's Most Important Unreported Story?”* [[reminders/AI Control/Robots Become Intelligent When People Form Relationships with Them by Sherry Turkle|Robots Become Intelligent When People Form Relationships with Them by Sherry Turkle]] > “Artificial intelligence researchers will, numerous experts attest, probably build systems that are "recursively self-improving"—that understand their own workings well enough to design improvements to themselves, thereby bootstrapping to a state of ever more unimaginable intellectual performance.” > **— Aubrey de Grey**, *2009, Edge Annual Question, “What Will Change Everything?”* [[reminders/AI Control/Self-improving AI Could Bootstrap Beyond Imaginable Intelligence by Aubrey de Grey|Self-improving AI Could Bootstrap Beyond Imaginable Intelligence by Aubrey de Grey]] > “"Deep Learning" algorithms are now showing us how to use artificial neural networks in ways that come closer than ever before to delivering learning on a grand scale. But we probably need "deep culture", as well as deep learning, if we are ever to press genuine hyper-intelligence from the large databases that drive our best probabilistic learning machines.” > **— Andy Clark**, *2013, Edge Annual Question, “What *should* We Be Worried About?”* [[reminders/AI Control/Super-a.i.s Won't Rule the World Unless They Get Culture First by Andy Clark|Super-a.i.s Won't Rule the World Unless They Get Culture First by Andy Clark]] > “My stomach hurts. I tell this to my wife and she suggests a medicine in the cabinet that she remembers I have used before and reminds me that it helped. Now, suppose that this was not my wife but a computer? Is it an ad? Does it matter? Can we do this. Yes. AI technology could easily employ models of people and there needs. (But, today, we are busy with key words.)” > **— Roger Schank**, *2016, Edge Annual Question, “What Do You Consider The Most Interesting Recent [Scientific] News? What Makes It Important?”* [[reminders/AI Control/Targeted Advertising Foreshadows Personalized AI by Roger Schank|Targeted Advertising Foreshadows Personalized AI by Roger Schank]] > “In other words, it was OK for wisdom to sometimes lag behind in the race, because it would catch up when needed. With more powerful technologies such as nuclear weapons, synthetic biology and future strong artificial intelligence, however, learning from mistakes is not a desirable strategy: we want to develop our wisdom in advance so that we can get things right the first time, because that might be the only time we’ll have. In other words, we need to change our approach to tech risk from reactive to proactive. Wisdom needs to progress faster.” > **— Max Tegmark**, *2016, Edge Annual Question, “What Do You Consider The Most Interesting Recent [Scientific] News? What Makes It Important?”* [[reminders/AI Control/Technology Is Advancing Faster Than Wisdom by Max Tegmark|Technology Is Advancing Faster Than Wisdom by Max Tegmark]] > “Neuroscientists have discovered that dopamine neurons, found in the brains of all vertebrates, are central to reward learning. The transient responses of dopamine neurons signal to the brain predictions for future reward, which are used to guide behavior and regulate synaptic plasticity. The dopamine responses have the same properties as the temporal difference learning algorithm used in TD-Gammon. Reinforcement learning was dismissed years ago as too weak a learner to handle the complexity of cognition. This belief needs to be re-evaluated in the light of the successes of TD-Gammon and learning algorithms in other areas of AI.” > **— Terrence J. Sejnowski**, *2007, Edge Annual Question, “What Are You Optimistic About?”* [[reminders/AI Control/The Brain Learns Like a Temporal Difference Algorithm by Terrence J. Sejnowski|The Brain Learns Like a Temporal Difference Algorithm by Terrence J. Sejnowski]] > “I believe (I know—but can't prove!) that scientists will soon understand the physiological basis of the "cognitive spectrum," from the bright violet of tightly-focused analytic thought all the way down to the long, slow red of low-focus sleep thought—also known as "dreaming." Once they understand the spectrum, they'll know how to treat insomnia, will understand analogy-discovery (and therefore creativity), and the role of emotion in thought—and will understand that thought takes place not only when you solve a math problem but when you look out the window and let your mind wander. Computer scientists will finally understand the missing mystery ingredient that made all their efforts to simulate human thought such naive, static failures, and turned this once-thriving research field into a ghost town. (Their failures were "static" insofar as people think in different ways at different times—your energetic, wide-awake mind works very differently from your tired, soon-to-be-sleeping mind; but artificial intelligence programs always "thought" in the same way all the time.)” > **— David Gelernter**, *2005, Edge Annual Question, “What Do You Believe Is True Even Though You Cannot Prove It?”* [[reminders/AI Control/The Cognitive Spectrum May Explain Why AI Cannot Simulate Human Thought by David Gelernter|The Cognitive Spectrum May Explain Why AI Cannot Simulate Human Thought by David Gelernter]] > “Twenty or thirty years ago, people dreamed of a global mind that knew everything and could answer any question. In those early times, we imagined that we'd need a huge breakthrough in artificial intelligence to make the global mind work — we thought of it as resembling an extremely smart person. The conventional Hollywood image for the global mind's interface was a talking head on a wall-sized screen.” > **— Rudy Rucker**, *2010, Edge Annual Question, “How Is The Internet Changing The Way You Think?”* [[reminders/AI Control/The Global Mind Emerged Without a Breakthrough in AI by Rudy Rucker|The Global Mind Emerged Without a Breakthrough in AI by Rudy Rucker]] > “Just about every aspect of the passive input-output model is thus false. We are not cognitive couch potatoes so much as proactive predictavores, forever trying to stay one step ahead of the incoming waves of sensory stimulation. Keeping this in mind will help us to design better experiments, build better robots, and appreciate the deep continuities binding life and mind.” > **— Andy Clark**, *2014, Edge Annual Question, “What Scientific Idea Is Ready For Retirement?”* [[reminders/AI Control/The Input-output Model of Perception and Action by Andy Clark|The Input-output Model of Perception and Action by Andy Clark]] > “The Internet is also itself a metaphor for the emerging paradigm of thought in which systems are conceived as networks of relationships. To the extent that a Web page can be defined only by what links to it and what it links to, it is analogous to one of Leibniz's monads. But Web pages still have content, and so are not purely relational. Imagine a virtual world abstracted from the Internet by deleting all the content so that all that remained was the links. This is an image of the universe according to relational theories of space and time, it is also an image of the neural network in the brain. The content corresponds to what is missing in those model, it corresponds to what physicists and computer scientists have yet to understand about the difference between a mathematical model and an animated world or conscious mind.” > **— Lee Smolin**, *2010, Edge Annual Question, “How Is The Internet Changing The Way You Think?”* [[reminders/AI Control/The Internet Exposes What Our Models Still Miss About Conscious Minds by Lee Smolin|The Internet Exposes What Our Models Still Miss About Conscious Minds by Lee Smolin]] > “The robotic moment will bring us to the question we must ask of every technology: does it serve our human purposes, a question that causes us to reconsider what these purposes are. When we connect with the robots of the future, we will tell and they will remember. But have they listened? Have we been "heard" in a way that matters? Will we no longer care?” > **— Sherry Turkle**, *2009, Edge Annual Question, “What Will Change Everything?”* [[reminders/AI Control/The Robotic Moment by Sherry Turkle|The Robotic Moment by Sherry Turkle]] > “Headquarters are a problem in many organizations and systems, where they represent an irrational bottleneck in the free flow of information. Be it the CEO of organizations, the CPU of computers or the conscious self control of human beings, the idea of every bit going through the center, is not functional. Building computers, robots and networks has taught us the need for parallel processing.” > **— Tor Nørretranders**, *2001, Edge Annual Question, “What Now?”* [[reminders/AI Control/The Vulnerability of Headquarters by Tor Nørretranders|The Vulnerability of Headquarters by Tor Nørretranders]] > “If we don't drown, how will we cope? If we somehow learn to swim in the rising tide of the infosphere, that will entail that we–that is to say, our grandchildren and their grandchildren–become very very different from our recent ancestors. What will "we" be like? (Some years ago, Doug Hofstadter wrote a wonderful piece, " In 2093, Just Who Will Be We?" in which he imagines robots being created to have "human" values, robots that gradually take over the social roles of our biological descendants, who become stupider and less concerned with the things we value. If we could secure the welfare of just one of these groups, our children or our brainchildren, which group would we care about the most, with which group would we identify?)” > **— Daniel C. Dennett**, *2006, Edge Annual Question, “What Is Your Dangerous Idea?”* [[reminders/AI Control/There Aren't Enough Minds to House the Population Explosion of Memes by Daniel C. Dennett|There Aren't Enough Minds to House the Population Explosion of Memes by Daniel C. Dennett]] > “The film A.I. and the idea contained within it that robots could someday become conscious is another case in which our wishes exceed reality. Despite enormous advances in artificial intelligence, no computer is able to experience a pin prick like a simple frog, or get hungry like a rat, or become happy or sad like all of us carbon-based units. But why is this the case? It is my conjecture that this is because there are some features of being alive that makes mind, consciousness, and feelings possible. That is, only living things are capable of the markers of mind such as intentionality, subjectivity, and self-awareness. But the important question of the link between life and the creation of consciousness remains a great scientific mystery, and the answer will go a long way toward our understanding of what a mind actually is.” > **— Todd E. Feinberg**, *2002, Edge Annual Question, “What Is Your Question? ... Why?”* [[reminders/AI Control/What Is the Relationship Between Being Alive and Having a Mind by Todd E. Feinberg|What Is the Relationship Between Being Alive and Having a Mind by Todd E. Feinberg]] > “Artificial intelligence researchers came along later but they too could not easily part from medieval thinking. The most important problems to tackle were agreed to be those that represented our "highest" abilities. Solve them and everything else would be easy. As a result, we have ended up with computer programs that can play chess as well as a grandmaster. But unfortunately we have none that can make a robot walk as well as a 2-year old, yet alone run like a cat. The really hard problems turn out to be those that we share with "lower" animals.” > **— Alun Anderson**, *2001, Edge Annual Question, “What Questions Have Disappeared?”* [[reminders/AI Control/Why Are Humans Smarter Than Other Animals by Alun Anderson|Why Are Humans Smarter Than Other Animals by Alun Anderson]] > “The Cartesian wall between mind and brain has fallen. Its disintegration has been aided by the emergence of a wealth of new techniques in collecting and analyzing neurobiological data, including neuroprediction, which is the use of human brain imaging data to predict how the brain’s owner will feel or behave in the future. The reality of neuroprediction requires accepting the fact that human thoughts and choices are a reflection of basic biological processes. It also has the potential to transform fields like mental health and criminal justice.” > **— Abigail Marsh**, *2016, Edge Annual Question, “WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER THE MOST INTERESTING RECENT [SCIENTIFIC] NEWS? WHAT MAKES IT IMPORTANT?”* [[reminders/AI Control/Brain Data Can Predict How a Person Will Feel or Behave by Abigail Marsh|Brain Data Can Predict How a Person Will Feel or Behave by Abigail Marsh]] > “Recent models of how the brain controls behavior have begun to clarify how the mechanisms that enable us to learn quickly about a changing world throughout life also embody properties of expectation, intention, attention, illusion, fantasy, hallucination, and even consciousness. I never thought that during my own life such models would develop to the point that the dynamics of identified nerve cells in known anatomies could be quantitatively simulated, along with the behaviors that they control. During the last five years, ever-more precise models of such brain processes have been discovered, including detailed answers to why the cerebral cortex, which is the seat of all our higher intelligence, is organized into layers of cells that interact with each other in characteristic ways.” > **— Stephen Grossberg**, *2002, Edge Annual Question, “WHAT IS YOUR QUESTION? ... WHY?”* [[reminders/Simulation/Brain Models Can Simulate Neural Dynamics and the Behaviors They Control by Stephen Grossberg|Brain Models Can Simulate Neural Dynamics and the Behaviors They Control by Stephen Grossberg]] > “Can we program a computer to find a 10,000-bit string that encodes more actionable wisdom than any human has ever expressed?” > **— Scott Aaronson**, *2018, Edge Annual Question, “WHAT IS THE LAST QUESTION?”* [[reminders/Machine Succession/Can a Computer Encode More Actionable Wisdom Than Any Human by Scott Aaronson|Can a Computer Encode More Actionable Wisdom Than Any Human by Scott Aaronson]] > “In 1995, Finnish philosopher Antti Revonsuo already pointed out how conscious experience exactly is a virtual model of the world, a dynamic internal simulation, which in standard situations cannot be experienced as a virtual model because it is phenomenally transparent—we “look through it” as if we were in direct and immediate contact with reality.” > **— Thomas Metzinger**, *2016, Edge Annual Question, “WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER THE MOST INTERESTING RECENT [SCIENTIFIC] NEWS? WHAT MAKES IT IMPORTANT?”* [[reminders/Simulation/Conscious Experience May Already Be a Virtual Model of Reality by Thomas Metzinger|Conscious Experience May Already Be a Virtual Model of Reality by Thomas Metzinger]] > “The digital revolution progresses at full pace and reshapes our societies. Many countries have invested in data-driven governance. The common idea is that "more data is more knowledge, more knowledge is more power, and more power is more success." This "magic formula" has promoted the concept of a digitally empowered "benevolent dictator" or "wise king," able to predict and control the world in an optimal way. It seems to be the main reason for the massive collection of personal data, which companies and governments alike have engaged in.” > **— Dirk Helbing**, *2016, Edge Annual Question, “WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER THE MOST INTERESTING RECENT [SCIENTIFIC] NEWS? WHAT MAKES IT IMPORTANT?”* [[reminders/AI Control/Data-Driven Governance Promises a System That Can Predict and Control the World by Dirk Helbing|Data-Driven Governance Promises a System That Can Predict and Control the World by Dirk Helbing]] > “With the rapid proliferation of online social networks as a main forum for emotion expression, we know too that emotion contagion can occur without direct interaction between people or when nonverbal emotional cues in the face and body are altogether absent. Importantly, too, this type of contagion itself spreads across a variety of other psychological phenomenon that indirectly or directly involves emotions ranging from kindness, health-related eating behaviors, and even the darker side of human behaviors including violence and racism. Emotion contagion matters, for better and for worse.” > **— June Gruber**, *2017, Edge Annual Question, “WHAT SCIENTIFIC TERM OR CONCEPT OUGHT TO BE MORE WIDELY KNOWN?”* [[reminders/AI Control/Emotion Contagion Spreads Through Online Networks Without Direct Contact by June Gruber|Emotion Contagion Spreads Through Online Networks Without Direct Contact by June Gruber]] > “As with any elegant scientific law, many complexities are waiting to be discovered. There is probably not just one accumulator, but many, as the brain accumulates evidence at each of several successive levels of processing. Indeed, the human brain increasingly fits the bill for a superb Bayesian machine that makes massively parallel inferences and micro-decisions at every stage. Many of us think that our sense of confidence, stability and even conscious awareness may result from such higher-order cerebral "decisions" and will ultimately fall prey to the same mathematical model. Valuation is also a key ingredient that I skipped, although it demonstrably plays a crucial role in weighing our decisions. Finally, the system is ripe with a prioris, biases and time pressures and other top evaluations that draw it away from strict mathematical optimality.” > **— Stanislas Dehaene**, *2012, Edge Annual Question, “WHAT IS YOUR FAVORITE DEEP, ELEGANT, OR BEAUTIFUL EXPLANATION?”* [[reminders/AI Control/Human Decisions May Follow a Universal Algorithm by Stanislas Dehaene|Human Decisions May Follow a Universal Algorithm by Stanislas Dehaene]] > “In particular, recent results have shown that an extremely rudimentary physical process called causal entropic forcing is able to replicate model versions of signature cognitive adaptive behaviors seen previously only in humans and certain non-human animal intelligence tests. These findings collectively suggest that a variety of key characteristics associated with human intelligence, including upright walking, tool use, and social cooperation, should instead be viewed as side effects of a deeper dynamical process that attempts to maximize future freedom of action. This freedom-maximizing process can only be meaningfully said to exist over an extended time period, and as such, is not a static property.” > **— Alexander Wissner-Gross**, *2014, Edge Annual Question, “WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT?”* [[reminders/Thermodynamics/Intelligence May Be a Process That Maximizes Future Freedom of Action by Alexander Wissner-Gross|Intelligence May Be a Process That Maximizes Future Freedom of Action by Alexander Wissner-Gross]] > “Anything simple enough to be understandable will not be complicated enough to behave intelligently, while anything complicated enough to behave intelligently will not be simple enough to understand.” > **— George Dyson**, *2004, Edge Annual Question, “WHAT'S YOUR LAW?”* [[reminders/AI Control/Intelligent Systems May Be Too Complex to Understand by George Dyson|Intelligent Systems May Be Too Complex to Understand by George Dyson]] > “Is the unipolar future of a "singleton" the inevitable destiny of intelligent life?” > **— Brian Christian**, *2018, Edge Annual Question, “WHAT IS THE LAST QUESTION?”* [[reminders/Machine Succession/Is a Singleton the Inevitable Destiny of Intelligent Life by Brian Christian|Is a Singleton the Inevitable Destiny of Intelligent Life by Brian Christian]] > “The central issue is the social, not scientific, definition of "thinking". A generation of Western intellectuals who took their identity mainly from their intelligence has grown too old to ask the question with any conviction, and anyway, machines are all around them thinking up a storm.” > **— Pamela McCorduck**, *2001, Edge Annual Question, “WHAT QUESTIONS HAVE DISAPPEARED?”* [[reminders/Machine Succession/Machines Are Already Thinking Up a Storm by Pamela McCorduck|Machines Are Already Thinking Up a Storm by Pamela McCorduck]] > “We have taught our machines to conduct propaganda. Web sites and other media are designed to be "sticky," using any means necessary to maintain our attention. Computers are programmed to stimulate Pavlovian responses from human beings, using techniques like one-to-one marketing, collaborative filtering, and hypnotic information architecture. Computers then record our responses in order to refine these techniques, automatically and without the need for human intervention. The only metrics used to measure the success of banner ads and web sites is the amount of economic activity - consumption and production - they are able to stimulate in their human user/subjects. As a result, the future content and structure of media will be designed by machines with no priority other than to induce spending.” > **— Douglas Rushkoff**, *2000, Edge Annual Question, “WHAT IS TODAY'S MOST IMPORTANT UNREPORTED STORY?”* [[reminders/AI Control/Machines Will Design Media to Induce Human Spending by Douglas Rushkoff|Machines Will Design Media to Induce Human Spending by Douglas Rushkoff]] > “There is a technological answer to the hijacking problem of course. The problem is that the technological answer comes with a price. It is quite feasible to create a national identity card and have that be used to check in at the airport. From that point, no silly security questions need be asked. Computer programs can be created that establish exactly the patterns and likely actions of any passenger and determine what questions if any should be asked by the airline personnel and whether the passenger is a risk of any sort. Airlines could refuse to allow on board people who don't fit their safety profiles. This is easy to do, but it would require installation of foolproof identity software (such as retinal scans) and make available to the government the complete whereabouts and intentions of every citizen. We may not be willing to give up the anonymity that many of us cherish. On the other hand we may have to.” > **— Roger Schank**, *2001, Edge Annual Question, “WHAT NOW?”* [[reminders/AI Control/Predictive Security Could Make Every Citizen's Whereabouts and Intentions Legible by Roger Schank|Predictive Security Could Make Every Citizen's Whereabouts and Intentions Legible by Roger Schank]] > “By mathematically modeling the social learning and social pressure between people my colleagues and I have been able to accurately model and predict crowd phenomena such as this cascade of mortgage defaulting. Importantly, we have also found that it is possible to shape real-world crowd behaviors by using social network incentives that alter the connections between people, and that these social incentives are much more effective than standard individual economic incentives. In one particularly striking example we were able to use social network incentives to deflate a 'groupthink' bubble among foreign exchange traders and consequently double the return on investment of the individual traders.” > **— Alex "Sandy" Pentland**, *2014, Edge Annual Question, “WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT?”* [[reminders/AI Control/Social Networks Can Be Engineered to Shape Crowd Behavior by Alex Sandy Pentland|Social Networks Can Be Engineered to Shape Crowd Behavior by Alex Sandy Pentland]] > “Gaining knowledge and skills should benefit survival, but not if you spend all of your time immersed in the Internet. The intermittent rewards can become addictive, hijacking your dopamine neurons that predict future rewards. The Internet, however, has not been around long enough, and is changing too rapidly, to know what the long-term effects will be on brain function. What is the ultimate price for omniscience?” > **— Terrence J. Sejnowski**, *2010, Edge Annual Question, “HOW IS THE INTERNET CHANGING THE WAY YOU THINK?”* [[reminders/AI Control/The Internet Can Hijack the Neurons That Predict Reward by Terrence J. Sejnowski|The Internet Can Hijack the Neurons That Predict Reward by Terrence J. Sejnowski]] > “How much time will pass between the last minute before artificial superintelligence and the first minute after it?” > **— Bruno Giussani**, *2018, Edge Annual Question, “WHAT IS THE LAST QUESTION?”* [[reminders/Machine Succession/The Minute Before and After Artificial Superintelligence by Bruno Giussani|The Minute Before and After Artificial Superintelligence by Bruno Giussani]] > “Imperial China developed sophisticated technologies while neglecting science, and it is all too easy to imagine a society that embraces technology but represses science, until only technology remains. Or, one particular species of technology might achieve such dominance that it halts the advance of science in order to preserve itself.” > **— George Dyson**, *2014, Edge Annual Question: “WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT?”* [[reminders/AI Control/A Technology May Halt Science to Preserve Itself by George Dyson|A Technology May Halt Science to Preserve Itself by George Dyson]] > “The pursuit is inspired by the general agreement in the sciences of mind that intelligence arises not from the medium that embodies it—whether biological or electronic—but the way interactions among elements in the system are arranged.” > **— Pamela McCorduck**, *2016, Edge Annual Question: “”* [[reminders/Machine Succession/Intelligence Does Not Arise From the Medium That Embodies It by Pamela McCorduck|Intelligence Does Not Arise From the Medium That Embodies It by Pamela McCorduck]] > “You will begin to perceive the entangled system that makes so many of our day-to-day decisions. Although we created it, we did not exactly design it. It evolved. Our relationship to it is similar to our relationship to our biological ecosystem. We are co-dependent, and not entirely in control.” > **— W. Daniel Hillis**, *2010, Edge Annual Question: “HOW IS THE INTERNET CHANGING THE WAY YOU THINK?”* [[reminders/Risk Debate/We Created the System but We Did Not Design It by W. Daniel Hillis|We Created the System but We Did Not Design It by W. Daniel Hillis]] > “Smart technology will never be really smart until it can decenter and anticipate.” > **— Gary Klein**, *2017, Edge Annual Question: “WHAT SCIENTIFIC TERM OR CONCEPT OUGHT TO BE MORE WIDELY KNOWN?”* [[reminders/AI Control/Smart Technology Is Not Smart Until It Can Decenter by Gary Klein|Smart Technology Is Not Smart Until It Can Decenter by Gary Klein]] > “How complex must be the initial design of the simplest machine that can learn from experience to achieve, at a minimum, the intelligence and abilities of a typical human being?” > **— Christopher Chabris**, *2018 Edge Annual Question, question* [[reminders/Machine Succession/How Simple Can a Human-Level Learning Machine Be by Christopher Chabris|How Simple Can a Human-Level Learning Machine Be by Christopher Chabris]] > “Why are humans still so much more flexible in their thinking and everyday reasoning than machines?” > **— Gary Marcus**, *2018 Edge Annual Question, question* [[reminders/Machine Succession/Why Is Human Reasoning Still More Flexible Than Machines by Gary Marcus|Why Is Human Reasoning Still More Flexible Than Machines by Gary Marcus]] > “How can we design a machine that can correctly answer every question, including this one?” > **— David Chalmers**, *2018 Edge Annual Question, question* [[reminders/Machine Succession/Could a Machine Correctly Answer Every Question by David Chalmers|Could a Machine Correctly Answer Every Question by David Chalmers]] ## Relationships - **Canonical concept:** [[wiki/Artificial Intelligence|Artificial Intelligence]]. - **Historical synthesis:** [[articles/A History of Machine Intelligence|A History of Machine Intelligence]]. - **Successor route:** [[collections/Machine Succession|Machine Succession]]. - **Master Reminder index:** [[collections/Simple Reminders|Simple Reminders]]. - **Source-specific archive:** [[collections/Edge|Edge]]. - **Peer research records:** [[research/Edge 2015 Full Quotation Curation|Edge 2015 Full Quotation Curation]] and [[research/Edge Evolution and Machine Transition Quotation Curation - 2026-09-11|Edge Evolution and Machine Transition Quotation Curation]].