In The Origins of Responsible Business Intelligence (Part 1), I covered the concepts I believe underpin Responsible Business Intelligence (RBI): the responsible use of Business Intelligence (BI) and Artificial Intelligence (AI), and the application of BI and AI by Responsible Businesses.
I also referenced one of the many pioneers who remain relevant, and who make Responsible Business Intelligence possible, today - Hans-Peter Luhn, who wrote an article in the 1958 edition of the IBM Journal titled "A Business Intelligence System".
Another key pioneer, Alan Turing, wrote an article in the 1950 edition of the Mind Journal titled "Computing Machinery and Intelligence". In this article, Turing considers 9 opinions opposed to his own view that machines could demonstrate intelligence:
The Theological Objection: "Thinking is a function of man's immortal soul. Hence no animal or machine can think."
The ‘Heads in the Sand’ Objection: “The consequences of machines thinking would be too dreadful. Let us hope and believe that they cannot do so.”
The Mathematical Objection: "Mathematical logic demonstrates a machine would never be able to answer ‘What do you think of Picasso?’"
The Argument from Consciousness: “Not until a machine can write a sonnet or compose a concerto because of thoughts and emotions felt, and not by the chance fall of symbols, could we agree that machine equals brain"
Arguments from Various Disabilities: “I grant you that you can make machines do all the things you have mentioned but you will never be able to make one to do X”
Lady Lovelace's Objection: "'A machine can never do anything really new', which may be parried by, ‘There is nothing new under the sun’"
Argument from Continuity in the Nervous System: "The size of a nervous impulse impinging on a neuron, may make a large difference to the size of the outgoing impulse. One cannot expect to be able to mimic the behaviour of the nervous system with a discrete-state system."
The Argument from Informality of Behaviour: "It is not possible to produce a set of rules purporting to describe what a man should do in every conceivable set of circumstances."
The Argument from Extra-Sensory Perception: Loosely, I summarise this as the ability of a human to influence the machine's conclusion.
Sounds a bit like today's debate around #AI to me?
Comments