Artificial intelligence – the rise of the conscious machine?

One of the most frequently debated topics in the popular press and in scientific publications is the idea that machines can equal human beings in many areas, which is a given, but also in their apparent conscious free will. This idea is both fascinating and frightening at the same time since, by extension, it diminishes to some extent the uniqueness of human beings, by comparing us to silicon-based machines with no autonomy.

However, this collective perception is not as new as it seems, and is part of a scientific trend that was initiated with the reductionism and deductionism that Spinoza and Auguste Comte, among others helped to shape.

Therefore, the emergence of thinking machines (or machines that seem to behave as such) simply appears to be the seemingly inevitable conclusion of the deconstruction of the sacredness attached to humanity: the big “H” no longer being necessary.

Lastly, science seems to assert the idea of the deconstruction of humanity

During the 20th century numerous factors reinforced this idea: the emergence of psychanalysis that has classified the attributes of transcendence, such as dreams, within the subconscious; mass murders that have enshrined the “banality of evil” and have more than diminished belief in the existence of a “humanity of light” as a counter to obscurantism; and consumerism, modern transcendence, to name but a few recent concepts.

Lastly, science, whether hard science or human science and as perceived by lay people, seems only to endorse and assert the idea of the deconstruction of humanity.

It is however really quite curious to note that science, as perceived by the common mortal, probably resembles more what it was at the beginning of the last century than what it actually is today. The phenomena linked to modelling chaos, the emergence of quantum disciplines, to name but a few, tend more towards a sense of “wonder’ or, on a more mundane level, to the increasing complexity of the world, than the opposite. Accordingly, asserting that reductionism is an epistemological constant is an assertion as empirical as that which consists in asserting the existence of reincarnation.

Thus, a logical axiom consistent with the reductionist assertion would be to assert that human conscience, if it was not reducible, would be “wonderful” not in the sense that it would use religious or spiritual concepts, but rather because it would give rise to scientific principles contrary to reductionism and deductionism. However, that is not to say that the “wonderful” axiom will not prevail one day: by way of example, various works consider that exogenous factors are part of biology -Penrose (i), Freeman, etc.- and influence it. The term “quantum brain” is often used to summarize these theories, but these phenomena are also observed in plant life. Clearly, and until one or other of the theories prevails definitively, the disputes between mainstream scientific opinion and the schools of scientific thought that choose the put in abyss of more complex models will be all the more intense, but the idea that a model as simple as Newtonian thinking can govern the world seems, at least in the scientific community, to be rapidly becoming increasingly remote from us.

Any scientist with some measure of credibility in the world of neuroscience will concede that the complexity of the brain is such that it is impossible to consider reproducing its behavioral responses

The same applies for brain modeling. Any scientist with some measure of credibility in the world of neuroscience will concede that the complexity of the brain is such that it is impossible to consider reproducing its behavioral responses (ii). It is therefore important to understand these two dynamics: on the one hand, that of science which no longer considers reductionism to be an exclusive key to understanding the universe and humanity, and, on the other hand, that of neuroscience which argues for humility with regard to the incorporation of this complexity into machines. Clearly, the media very often give voice to those who predict the emergence of conscious machines (generally without trying to define consciousness), in the relatively short term, without seeking moreover to elaborate on the definition beyond the concept of self-conscious. It is therefore necessary to try and understand their motivation: is it a question of an essayist promoting the publication of a new work or perhaps a startup in the process of raising a large sum of money to finance its artificial intelligence-based innovation? It is moreover regrettable that observers rarely consider confronting some of them with their past statements, since these were generally outlandish and likely to destroy their credibility. To give just one example: this involves not an individual but a well-known company which, in 2012, announced that it would launch completely autonomous vehicles on the market in 2016. I will leave it to you to find the name.

(i) we highly recommend the book The Emperor's New Mind from Sir Roger Penrose, a brilliant essay challenging the hypothesis of conscious machine.

(ii) To read also five misconception about AI and human intelligence in the article "The Myth of Superhuman AI" - Wired April 2017