I’ve never been too much in favor of the term “artificial” as applied to what we now call “Artificial Intelligence.” There has always been something about the term that just doesn’t seem right. It seems to me that what we call intelligence is the ability to deduce a result from two or more independent concepts, and this deduction has to follow logically from those concepts. There has to be some sort of electrical connection made between two or more nodes within some “brain” or electrical machine for the logical deduction to take place. That connection could be the wires in a computer or the thin metallic connections on a circuit board, or it could be through the axon fibers of a neuron in a brain (or at least within some sort of biological node of nervous tissue). Thus, there has to be some sort of active transmission of impulse going on to justify the term “intelligent”. As an example, is a honeybee or wasp intelligent when it stings someone (or some bear) who has just invaded its home honey supply or its nest? Or is that just automatic? Honeybees don’t just sting anything. They wait until a real intruder gets into their honey supply. Yet, even if the sting response is built in, there has to have been some sort of built-in deduction by the bee or wasp: 1. an intruder is nearby, and 2. activate sting response. Shall we call this “intelligence”? Undoubtedly, there must have been an active nerve signal sent out to tell the bee or wasp: Sting!
The human brain I am told is made up of around one trillion cells. I assume that’s the total number of cells in the brain, but of that number, only about one quarter are actual nerve cells capable of sending electrical signals down a long axon to another cell and completing the circuit. (The other three-quarters of cells are supporting cells which may or may not participate in the nerve response.) But however many cells there are, this represents far more computing power than is present in a honey be or wasp brain, and allows us to make decisions based on a much greater number of independent concepts than a honeybee or a wasp. (For example, no wasp is going to write—just as an example—anything that has the power of the Declaration of Independence.) It is here we have labeled this tremendous brain power “intelligence.” It’s based on the human brain. The more brain power, we have asserted, the greater the intelligence. Are dogs intelligent? Their brain is smaller than ours. But some whales have a brain larger than ours. Are they more intelligent?
So, I seem to be saying, intelligence can exist even at the smallest level. And this tends to belie the idea of “artificial” intelligence. I don’t believe there can ever be any such thing as “artificial” intelligence. Intelligence is an absolute value. It either exists or it doesn’t. Certainly, a computer, using AI, can write a book. It may not be any good (I like to think) but it may be a book nonetheless. It’s just that the human mind, with its vastly increased number of electrical connections and the almost limitless memory that goes along with that, can look back on a life full of ups and downs, rights and wrongs, highs and lows, good times and bad, friends and foes, sickness and health, love and misery, and write a book with far more feeling, sensitivity, and even empathy than some computer. Computers work only on the program that is instilled in them, whereas a human writes from a degree of experience a computer can never approach, HAL 9000 notwithstanding. Maybe we should call it “computer intelligence” instead, to emphasize where this unimaginative brainpower is coming from.