How Far Are We From ‘True’ Artificial Intelligence – And Do We Really Want To Go There?

by   |   February 23, 2017 5:30 am   |   5 Comments

Bernard Marr

Bernard Marr

Artificial Intelligence is something that’s been on the horizon for a long time – probably as long as anyone reading this will be able to remember.

Since its emergence into the public consciousness through science fiction, we have understood with certainty that one day machines will have “intelligence”, and considered the ethical and philosophical implications.

Today, though, there’s a palpable sense that we’re getting close. AI is one of the biggest buzzwords in tech, and fundamental to most predictions how IT will enable change and growth in coming years. Everything is now “smart”, we are consistently told – and doom mongers (including some very smart people!) are predicting that we are rushing headlong towards calamity.

But is this all marketing hype? Are we really any closer to “intelligent” machines than we were 20 years ago, when many of the ideas driving AI today – machine learning and deep learning, for example – already existed – but without the internet, there simply wasn’t the data to exploit them fully?

Well, to answer that question we have to first ask ourselves what this “intelligence”, that we are trying to simulate artificially, actually is.

“Intelligence” is notoriously difficult to define or quantify. Clearly, from the type of tasks that we’re looking forward to seeing AIs do, and the way we are expecting to interact with them as they do them, today’s AI is, generally speaking, in search of human-like intelligence.

Some of the most exciting recent work in AI, such as the development of deep neural networks, is intrinsically based around creating AIs which mimic the function of human, organic brains. But human-like intelligence comes in many forms. We’re all aware of people who appear to be very smart in some ways, but less so in others. Clichéd examples are the bookish professor with poor social skills and limited ‘common sense’, or the charming, persuasive and successful business tycoon with limited academic knowledge or ability. AIs also vary wildly in the form of intelligence they emulate.

Defining “intelligence”

IQ tests were formulated as a method of quantifying intelligence, although their validity in this regard is often disputed. Machines can do IQ tests – with around the same ability level as a four-year-old. But there are many other factors which go into “human-like” intelligence that IQ tests do not even touch on.

Emotional intelligence registers how well someone is able to understand and interact with people on an emotional level, or interpret their own feelings. This is sometimes through of as empathy as something which is intuitive but is undoubtedly a mental process, dependent on our brain’s ability to analyze information and infer an insight or solution, so qualifies as “intelligence”. This aspect of our intelligence is thought to be integral to our creative abilities – something else machines will have to master if they are going to develop “human-like” intelligence. Steps are certainly being taken in this direction. IBM’s Watson Music can create music designed to mimic the feelings and emotions conveyed by a different piece of music. AIs have also written poetry and novels.

Athletes and sportspeople rely on a spatial awareness of what is going on around them as well as needing their brain to work quickly and accurately to react to complicated, changing circumstances. Again these are processes carried out in the brain, even though the qualities we most often associate with athletes are physical. AIs have been taught to play old video games using only visual input, showing that they are capable of “learning” how to react to movement and even developing a desire to win.

Our communicative ability – how well we are able to express our ideas and pass the valuable information we interpret from the world around us is another factor of intelligence. Again, machines have made ground here, with recent developments in the AI-related fields of Natural Language Processing and Natural Language Generation, which are bringing them closer to being able to communicate with us in a human-like way.

An AI would have to be able to demonstrate all of these abilities, and probably many more, before it approached what we would consider to be a human-like level of intelligence. Now, undoubtedly, the building blocks are falling into place for this to become a reality, but is an artificial human brain, capable of working at super-speed and with unlimited memory and perfect recollection, what we want or need?

Artificial consciousness

The question has ethical implications, particularly if we bring the controversial topic of consciousness into the equation. From a scientific viewpoint, consciousness is a state that arises when a biological brain interprets the flood of sensory input streaming in from the world around it, leading, somehow, to the conclusion that it exists as an entity.

It’s not well understood at all – but most of us can conceive how this massive flood of images and sounds is interpreted through a biological neuro-network which leads to “thoughts” – and among those thoughts are concepts of individual existence such as “I am a human”, “I exist” and “I am experiencing thoughts”.

So, it’s only a small step of logic to assume that machines will one day – perhaps soon, given how broad the stream of data they are capable of ingesting and processing is becoming – in some way experience this phenomena, too. How long before a machine is capable of saying to us “I too, am experiencing a sense of existence and individuality”? And, when it does, will we have any sound intellectual ground from which to argue that it is isn’t? After all, science has yet to put forward any evidence against the idea that we are entirely mechanistic constructs ourselves. Our brains run on electricity and rely on energy to fuel them.

Oh, and because I realize that religious people might feel alienated by the ideas I’m bringing up here – here’s one for you guys. If God exists, and created us, doesn’t that mean that we’re really nothing more than AIs ourselves? Giving us even less ground to argue with a human-created AI that it isn’t sentient itself?

Today when we talk about consciousness and the possibility that machines will develop sentience, it feels like we are wandering into fringe territories. But it’s potentially a problem that will become very real for us at some time in the future, if we remain in pursuit of ever-more human-like intelligence.

Perhaps fortunately, when we talk about AI today, most of them type we are talking about very specific applications focused on solving a particular problem. It’s doubtful, for example, that we are going to find ourselves in an argument any time soon with the AI that manages energy regulation in Google’s datacenters about whether it is conscious or not. But that could just be because we haven’t given it a mouth to speak with yet, or the sensors it needs to make that deduction. When we do, we might have to prepare for a shock!


Bernard Marr is a bestselling author, keynote speaker, strategic performance consultant, and analytics, KPI, and big data guru. In addition, he is a member of the Data Informed Board of Advisers. He helps companies to better manage, measure, report, and analyze performance. His leading-edge work with major companies, organizations, and governments across the globe makes him an acclaimed and award-winning keynote speaker, researcher, consultant, and teacher.


Subscribe to Data Informed for the latest information and news on big data and analytics for the enterprise.

the unrealized promise of analytics (and how data governance can help)

Tags: , , , , ,


  1. John Cielo-Deluna
    Posted February 23, 2017 at 6:56 am | Permalink

    Machine Intelligence or Artificial Intelligence is fundamentally different from Human Learning and Intelligence. Why? Humans don’t use algorithms to decide which shirt they are going to use.

  2. Malcolm Mullins
    Posted February 26, 2017 at 7:21 am | Permalink

    The premis of this artical is an interesting one. I suspect the final piece of the jigsaw will come about as the unintended consequence of a thoroughly legitimate undertaking. Hopefully this is some time away, as I for one, do not wish to have an argument with a machine. The human variety are challenging enough.

  3. Guillermo
    Posted March 25, 2017 at 12:45 am | Permalink

    In my opinion: Of course humans use algorithms, but we do not realize about that because we do it “naturally”, that does not mean we are not programmed in some way. This is a subjefct for a big debate

  4. Dipthi
    Posted May 15, 2017 at 3:57 am | Permalink

    Difference between machines and humans is power to think.
    Human solely relies on thinking. Thinking can be quantified in algorithms. At the end Human when start life start perceiving, understand things the way surrounding teach and decides based upon experiences. So no human response we can say is not programmed, its programmed on the basis of data in the memory and past experiences.

  5. rich
    Posted May 15, 2017 at 7:48 am | Permalink

    The key point that well argued observers like Bostrom makes in his book SuperIntelligence is that we had better put strict guard rails on what will be rapid input AI/ML systems because algorithms do not have morale limits. For example, you could get wholly unexpected outcomes if a machine maximized for a simple goal of “calculate pi” because in theory at least, at the extreme that would mean “collect all assets, energy and computing power for this one activity” to the detriment of all others.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>