Let use your imagination (an ability only humans have).
with shovels by one huge excavator.
I happen not to like liars and pretenders (especially those who call themselves scientists; you would not be surprised if a politician would be a liar and a pretender).
And currently all AI-involved developers known to me (by their writings) are both.
They pretend that things they don’t know about intelligence aren’t important.
Because admitting that would force them to adopt a new term instead of "AI" (and risk millions in funding).
Let use your imagination (an ability only humans have).
Imagine this conversation:
#1 (pointing at a bicycle) "This is a rocket!"
#2 "No, it's a bicycle"
#1 "A rocket can move from point A to point B. And this thing can move from point A to point B - this is a rocket"
#2 "No, a rocket can fly and this thing cannot, it is not a rocket"
#1 "I don't care, a rocket can move from point A to point B. This device can move from point A to point B - this is a rocket!"
Do you get the analogy?
AI technologists point a finger at their neural network devices and say "this is an artificial intelligence!" And I say "No, it's not".
Of course, you can say that this analogy is wrong, the difference between a bicycle and a rocket is not the same as the difference between a neural network and an actual artificially made intelligent device. And I say, yes, you are right.
The difference between a bicycle and a rocket is much much smaller than the difference between any current neural network and an actual artificially made intelligent device.
That is why an actual artificially made intelligent device does not exist and will not be developed for a very very long time.
For people who have grown-up children, this analogy may be helpful.
Parents celebrate every single achievement of their children - the first time the child stand up and stands for 5 seconds before falling on the floor, the first time the child walks across a room, etc. But a reasonable parent knows how far the child yet is from being called "an adult".
"Parents" of "AI" are very proud of their "child"; but that "child" is "just making its first steps and just learning how to speak", however its "parents" tell everybody "Our kid just got a PhD in rocket science".
It’s like that. Eventually AI may become intellectually as powerful as people (even the smartest ones). When that happens, we will have to treat AI the same way we treat people, the source of intelligence does not matter, it does no matter how does this individual get to life - biologically or manufactured. The treatment - education, culture, beliefs, etc. will define the behavior.
The confuse or deliberately substitute the ethics of AI (as an intelligent agent) with the ethics of using AI (by an intelligent agent).
The former does not exist.
The latter is "trivial", or at least no different from the ethic of using an atomic bomb, or a hammer.
"А те хто нихочуть таскать люмень будють таскать чюгунь."
A food for thoughts:
When one wants to say a sentence, it is never formed in full at once in one's mind. At first, in some part of a brain, just an intention of what should be said is being formed.
Everyone who wrote at least one essay, not mentioning a book, knows this feeling. Now one knows from the beginning the exact words he or she will be writing from the start to the end of the book.
Then that intention guides the formation of words from the first to the last. That process is happening in a different part of a brain.
it is a very important notion:
1. one part of a brain is responsible for generating initial intention.
2. another part of a brain is responsible for the exact formulation of the text guided by that initial intention.
Again - TWO different parts of a brain are acting in concert to generate a textual thought.
NONE of the current neural networks is even close to mimic this type of functioning.
And, as I said many many times before, no one in AI field even thinks about this.
The neural networks they design these days a much more complicated than ones ten years ago, but they a still extremely primitive relative the structure of a brain - the structure that no one really knows yet.
Anyone who wants to understand the structure of intelligence needs to start asking people of all professions: actors, teachers, chefs, drivers, ... - what do they feel or think right before they feel or think that what they feel or think (but only if this sentence makes sense for them).
For the fans of "The Game of Throns" the following analogy may be helpful.
What is the significance of Bran become the three eyed raven? Of course, he was the bate for the Night King, there was no other way to defeat his army. But he also was the only one who could find the truth about Jon Snow. And that explains why Jon Snow could ride a dragon. And that explains why the dragon did not kill him when Snow killed the Mather of Dragons - for the dragon it was between two "dragon kings", anyone else would have been burned. But George R. R. Martin did not know all the details at the beginning of the book. All he knew was he did not want to kill Jon Snow in the end. That is why in his mind from the very beginning George R. R. Martin made Jon Snow a Targaryen. And envisioned Bran as the one who would revile this for us. And all what George R. R. Martin knew from the beginning is that he would make Jon Snow to kill the Mather of Dragons and he would let him live after that. All the actual details came later during the writing.
Currently, there is no one on the whole planet who knows how such a process "idea - first, details - later" can be modeled. But this very process "idea - first, details - later" represents one of the most important features of intelligence: i.e. an ability to create a solution to a problem one has never solved before (and represent this solution in textual or audio symbols). Creating a solution starts from generating an idea, and then that idea gets more detailed representation, tested and rejected, accepted, or modified.
There is such profession as a movie critic; a book critic; a play critic, etc.
I have established a new professional field, and I am the only member of that field, so far - an AI critic.
No one likes critique, hence no one likes critics. However, in other fields the role of critics has been established as important - that is the sign of the maturity of the field.
In AI people just ignore any critique altogether.
I have no time to put all my writing on AI in a single and edited piece, but they all provide different insights on the matter and available here: https://www.cognisity.how/p/arti.html