An argument for the impossibility of machine intelligence
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Since the noun phrase `artificial intelligence' (AI) was coined, it has been debated whether humans are able to create intelligence using technology. We shed new light on this question from the point of view of themodynamics and mathematics. First, we define what it is to be an agent (device) that could be the bearer of AI. Then we show that the mainstream definitions of `intelligence' proposed by Hutter and others and still accepted by the AI community are too weak even to capture what is involved when we ascribe intelligence to an insect. We then summarise the highly useful definition of basic (arthropod) intelligence proposed by Rodney Brooks, and we identify the properties that an AI agent would need to possess in order to be the bearer of intelligence by this definition. Finally, we show that, from the perspective of the disciplines needed to create such an agent, namely mathematics and physics, these properties are realisable by neither implicit nor explicit mathematical design nor by setting up an environment in which an AI could evolve spontaneously.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 2 of its 26 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Oct 2021.
Builds on
2 of 26 references.
References · 2
- 2021On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Modelscited by 4,033
- 2019Making AI meaningful againcited by 5
Built on by
Not cited yet.