You know, there are some problems that are simply unsolvable. Star Trek-style teleportation, I'm inclined to think, will never happen. I think "true" AI of the

You know, there are some problems that are simply unsolvable. Star Trek-style teleportation, I'm inclined to think, will never happen. I think "true" AI of the sort described in this article is, likewise a pipe dream. Not in a 100 million years of scientific effort could we create the hardware and software necessary to do this. If you think otherwise, that's because you have an enduring and overriding faith in the power of science to overcome all barriers and achieve all goals. But on what basis could you place that faith? Sure, science is generally good at solving problems and advancing technology, but there are some "technologies" that are simply not attainable: indeed, not even clearly definable. I think that deep AI of this kind is one of those. We think we know what it would mean for a computer to think like a person. It's not so clear that we do. Given that we deeply don't understand how we ourselves not only think, but also feel, want, assess, moralize, and experience, we're unlikely to produce thinking machines. "Ah, but the Power of Science, may it be praised forever!" you say. "Science will help us to understand how we understand!" Yeah, maybe, nah, I don't think so. Just look at the construction itself. It's loopy. "Understand how we understand"? I doubt it's possible for any instrument to ever really comprehend itself; in other words, for any thinker to ever think accurately about how it thinks. We should keep AI research within the realm of observable, measurable, useful utilities. "Comprehension" of any kind... it's never going to happen. There I've said it. Now roast me at the stake, O ye of great faith.