I have a hard time imagining some sort of weird result where we have radically superhuman AIs that just can't seem to convincingly fake being human.
I have a hard time imagining it too, but I see no good reason why that couldn't happen (which was the whole point of the article I think - our current technology can easily make many different things that can fly, but we are still incapable of making something that really flies like a bird).
which was the whole point of the article I think - our current technology can easily make many different things that can fly, but we are still incapable of making something that really flies like a bird
I read it differently. The aim is to make something that can fly. But we, from our position as birds, don't accept flying as anything other than bird-like flying - with wings and feathers.
Leaving the analogy, I think the article is saying that humans generally don't accept anything as artificial intelligence unless it exactly mimics a human, or is indistinguishable from a human. Thus the attempts to work out exactly how the brain (or wing) works and to replicate it.
In reality, AI research has progressed considerably - visual recognition, autonomous navigation, question answering etc. But these are only 'gliding', and are only leading towards 'other flight-like phenomena' such as bat and insect flight. We don't accept them as parts of an artificial intelligence because we think (rightly or wrongly) that there is something more to intelligence than just a set of special algorithms and feed back loops.
I thought it was a critique of people focusing on trying to create AI by modeling human intelligence. But I think it's a dumb article because I am reasonably sure that Avian aerodynamics undoubtedly inspired early aeronautics.
If his criticism is just of the Turing Test instead, then I think he's a simpering ninny.
Maybe it will be easier to build extremely intelligent, consistent, rational AI than to get the nuanced emotion and irrationality that regular people have.
Thing is, nuanced emotion and irrationality is often actually rational - not in the sense that the human brain thought logically through the situation and decided rationally to act irrationally, but in the game theoretic sense of producing a superior outcome.
For example, if you get angry you can lose control and do things you'd regret later (seemingly irrational). That forms a powerful argument to avoid angering someone, because you know that they might react badly even if it's not in their best interests. Thus, evolution can engineer in a defense against e.g. cheaters of various kinds, even when punishing any one cheater would be counter-productive for the one doing the punishing.
(It strikes me now that there's an argument in here about banking, bailouts, the angry public and avoiding collapse of the economy, but I'm not going to pursue it.)
I have a hard time imagining it too, but I see no good reason why that couldn't happen (which was the whole point of the article I think - our current technology can easily make many different things that can fly, but we are still incapable of making something that really flies like a bird).