By Robert A. Vella

After the deadly crash of a self-driving car (i.e. a “semi-autonomous” vehicle) in 2017, I wrote some commentary on artificial intelligence based on my long career as a computer programmer in which I developed experimental A.I. systems.  The two main points I presented were intended to dispel popular misconceptions and myths about the true nature of artificial intelligence:

  • That the greatest advances in computer technology, by far, have been in processing speed, data storage, and interconnectivity.
  • That what we refer to as “artificial intelligence” is more a product of this exponential increase in computer power and sophistication, and less a product of some digital mind creation as depicted in science fiction.  Computers are not self-aware, and are not likely to be in the foreseeable future.

Last night on 60 Minutes, Scott Pelley interviewed Kai-Fu Lee – a venture capitalist, technology executive, writer, and artificial intelligence expert based in Beijing, China.  Lee conveyed the same two points I had made in addition to several illuminating aspects of artificial intelligence and its future.  This news magazine segment is quite fascinating, and I urge readers to watch it (it’s about 13 minutes long).  From:  Facial and emotional recognition; how one man is advancing artificial intelligence

Scott Pelley: I wonder, do you think people around the world have any idea what’s coming in artificial intelligence?

Kai-Fu Lee: I think most people have no idea, and many people have the wrong idea.

Scott Pelley: But you do believe it’s going to change the world?

Kai-Fu Lee: I believe it’s going to change the world more than anything in the history of mankind. More than electricity.


Lee is much more talkative about another threat posed by AI. He explores the coming destruction of jobs in a new book, “AI Superpowers: China, Silicon Valley and the New World Order.”

Kai-Fu Lee: AI will increasingly replace repetitive jobs. Not just for blue-collar work but a lot of white-collar work.

Scott Pelley: What sort of jobs would be lost to AI?

Kai-Fu Lee: Basically chauffeurs, truck drivers anyone who does driving for a living their jobs will be disrupted more in the 15 to 20 year time frame and many jobs that seem a little bit complex, chef, waiter, a lot of things will become automated we’ll have automated stores, automated restaurants, and all together in 15 years, that’s going to displace about 40 percent of the jobs in the world.


Scott Pelley: What does that do to the fabric of society?

Kai-Fu Lee: Well, in some sense there is the human wisdom that always overcomes these technology revolutions. The invention of the steam engine, the sewing machine, electricity, have all displaced jobs. And we’ve gotten over it. The challenge of AI is this 40 percent, whether it is 15 or 25 years, is coming faster than the previous revolutions.

There’s a lot of hype about artificial intelligence, and it’s important to understand this is not general intelligence like that of a human. This system can read faces and grade papers but it has no idea why these children are in this room or what the goal of education is. A typical AI system can do one thing well, but can’t adapt what it knows to any other task. So for now, it may be that calling this “intelligence,” isn’t very smart.

Scott Pelley: When will we know that a machine can actually think like a human?

Kai-Fu Lee: Back when I was a grad student, people said, “If machine can drive a car by itself, that’s intelligence.” Now we say that’s not enough. So, the bar keeps moving higher. I think that’s, I guess, more motivation for us to work harder. But if you’re talking about AGI, artificial general intelligence, I would say not within the next 30 years, and possibly never.

That computers are not self-aware, nor are likely to be in the foreseeable future, should alleviate paranoia about a robot revolution destroying humankind as depicted in numerous science fiction stories (e.g. Issac Asimov’s I, Robot).  Conversely, it should instill apprehension about the technical limitations of artificial intelligence as well as the societal costs posed by automation.  If A.I. will enrich clever entrepreneurs and venture capitalists, but will eliminate the economic livelihood of masses of people, then is it something we really should be doing so rapidly?

Addendum:  This examination of artificial intelligence is based on current digital computer technology.  Quantum computing offers far greater potential, but it is still in its infancy.

10 thoughts on “Artificial Intelligence revisited

  1. As with visiting aliens, the movie industry has implanted many thoughts into the minds of the general populace. Unfortunately, some find ii difficult to separate imagination from reality (not unlike religious thought).

    Too bad so few actually pay attention to guys like Kai-Fu Lee.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Good post. Very informative and assuring. Glad to know AI’s won’t be taking over soon any time soon. Now, if only we could give Trump an intelligence of some kind, we might be set, or, maybe we’d be worse off if he could think intelligently.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. While I find science fascinating I feel that we have a disturbing set of priorities as far as how much time and energy we put into our technological experimentation. (Or at least I often don’t agree with the majority of people on what to put resources into). We put so much into automation of ordinary jobs that, while increasing efficiency (and corporate profits), we lose jobs that we don’t seem to put much effort into replacing. The ruling class gains more than the producing class.

    I wonder if it might not be wiser to put time and energy into technology that will decrease damage to the planet and help us be more efficient at things like providing clean water and proper sanitation for everyone, for example. I’m sure that sometimes theses two ideas coincide, but I see a huge problem in continuing a social system in which the most important concerns are economic profit (for a minuscule portion of the population) and convenience. I honestly believe that improving life for everyone on the planet would be more of a benefit than using technology for the increased efficiency of electronic devices and ease in accessing entertainment. I believe convenience is overrated. I think a lot of the machines we’ve built have just made us lazier. Free time is good, but maybe having too much isn’t such a good thing. I also realize that there is a huge difference between machinery and computer technology, but it seems that the goal of each era of advancement has been roughly the same.

    I’m not saying that no technology is being used for good. I love having easy access to so much information – and entertainment. The internet has made research much easier, though there is a down side – so much propaganda presented as valid information. It becomes difficult to sift through the garbage to get to the good stuff and a lot of people don’t seem to have the patience and attention span to do that. We also have so much information at our fingertips that we can be buried by it. 🙂

    Anyway, I’m starting to ramble as I tend to discuss different subjects at the same time so I’ll try to end this before I get lost. 🤣

    Thank you for a fascinating post once again.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s