Intelligent Design Outsmarted By Artificial Intelligence
If a debate were held between a person whose views are belief-based, versus a robot whose perspective is fact-based, logically, the robot should win. But a robot winning a debate against a human being would never happen because the scales would be tipped in our favor simply because – we can.

If we were as fact-obsessed and logical as we were decades ago, publicity-seekers who fabricate the truth would neither be making news, nor appearing on TV shows explaining away their convoluted views. Much less, running for president.
Thus, as we puzzle over making sense out of nonsense, the logical, amiable, diplomatic robot is rapidly gaining ground, surpassing humans.
For about a 100 years, Moore’s Law has predicted that computer power would double every two years. Intel’s co-founder, Gordon Moore, famously made the comment that doubling transistors on a microchip would guarantee consumers faster, better electronics at a rapid rate. This probably explains why we continually have to buy new computers before getting tired of the old one.
But as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle would have it, Moore’s Law is about to be broken. It is not because the transistors aren’t shrinking; it is because there is simply not enough energy to power them all once being loaded onto a chip. This could mean a slowdown in the rate technology advances in the coming years.
Regarding the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: In physics, silicon at the molecular level is unstable. The tiny transistors are so powerful, and become so overheated that they can melt the silicon and cause the electrons to leak out. Computer scientists have known we would surpass silicon’s physical limits to hold more and more transistors at some point.
Even today, the most advanced microprocessors have so many transistors on them that they are unable to power them all at the same time. Many of the transistors on a chip are left unpowered, while others are put to work.
Meanwhile, it’s no secret that physicists are researching optical computers, quantum computers, DNA computers, protein computers and various kinds of computers down to the molecular, microscopic level, none of which are ready to debut. Yet.
So as the question was posed to Physicist, Michio Kaku, “Do you believe in the coming singularity?” Or in other words, will machines take over and become smarter than us?
Dr. Kaku, in considering Moore’s Law, and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, responded, “I don’t know. However, if by the end of the century, the technical problems are worked out, we might be able to create machines that are as smart as us. Right now, our machines are as smart as insects. Eventually they will be smart as mice, and after that, as smart as dogs and cats. Then if our machines become as smart as monkeys, at that point they can become potentially dangerous. Monkeys can formulate their own plans; they can formulate their own strategies, their own goals. At that point, I would say let’s put a chip in their brain to shut them off if they get murderous thoughts.”
It seems inevitable that robots will surpass many humans in 20 years. To get a feel for the skill level of machines today, go to a website called, Cleverbot.com and experience interacting with bots. The conversation level is a bit amazing, and perhaps even more pleasant than conversing with a few humans.
Machines have the advantage of computing logically while having no emotional baggage. The one advantage humans have over machines is creativity. However, if robots one day have feelings, and the ability to recognize and question their own existence, or even perhaps have the cognitive skills of a monkey, we would certainly have a problem. We would not be able to simply put a chip in robots to turn them off, as Dr. Kaku suggests. At that point, the question would be: Do we have the legal right to “turn off,” or “kill” a robot?
© September 1, 2011 Reiko Eoh

Salon.com
Comments
As a belief based person, I go with the idea that we beat the machines, but not by much, and we have to work harder and harder to keep up with our own creations. Ask Kasparov. But very nice piece, as usual.
I know that all good things must come to an end but don't count the ion level power transfer out just yet. I like the piece.
I don't understand how people can watch a chess match quietly; I react to every move they make. It's like an intense sport!
Met Gordon, once. Of course, he didn't meet me, I was just a worker bee in one of his factories (Fab 3, Livermore, CA, 1988) and we sort of rubbed elbows at Marriot's Great America in San Jose when the company rented the place for a day for it's employees.
Moore's Law is nice, but it's not really a law. In fact, I don't even think it can be rationally even called a Theory. A Hypothesis or Maxim, perhaps. At some point, Moore's idea of the doubling will have to plateau -- at least for a time, while we catch up with ourselves and invent another way to increase the exponential rise of circuits by finding other, smaller ways to make them. As you said, there are a lot of design experiments in the works, yet nothing remotely ready to begin mass production or to knock silicon based substrates off the top of the heap.
I look forward to seeing what can be done and how. It's always been amazing to me, ever since I read about the first diode being made in 1947. Who ever would have thought that we could provide the world with this sort of functional ability by fusing some impurities into silicon (which is Glass) and etching it with some acids -- later pumping a boatload of power into a rarified gas under vacuum and creating a plasma?
It's really pretty amazing if you really look into how ICs are made today.
As for chatting with a bot, that's all programming. Of course, the speed of processing can make a difference, but the program is king when it comes to processing information and making a choice within a matrix of answers. The processor, or chip, is merely a holding cell for making all that work.
Until we can get much more creative with quantum computing, fuzzy logic (which is really nothing more than weighted algorithms for making a decision based on percentages of given indecision and lack of information between opposing potentials) it really won't matter how much processing power is available. Only so0 much unused potential.
However, as faith based versus logic based argumentation goes, I'd have to agree with your basic premise en toto. A faith-based argument holds, as it's crowning to "winning" is that, at a certain point, you can simply say, "Well it's a matter of faith and if you can't see that, then I pity you for your lack of it." Sad, but, as with the Emperor's New Clothes, many folks will fall back on "Faith" as the inability to desire to look like you are being "uncultured" or "unrefined" in your views and so, no-one but a child will be willing to say, "He's naked." Not exactly a recipe for wisdom, reflection or increased learning.
Interesting piece.
-r-
And who decides who "wins" a debate?
http://spritzophrenia.wordpress.com/2010/07/26/the-physics-of-immortality/
That singularity stuff is very trendy among certain ubergeeks, but I'm not 100% convinced, as per the follow-up article. Still, very fun to think about!
Jonathan from Spritzophrenia :)
Jonathan
I now deal only with the passing of the seasons here in Tuscany (shades of the famous "Making of a new machine" book when one of the engineers on the project left one day affixing a note on his office door that stated something like "....gone back to Vermont where the unit of time is the passing of the seasons......... ,rather than the technological microseconds of that time; the bots will never get there!
saluti
Yes, I would much prefer enjoying the passing seasons in Tuscany! ;)
humans are intelligently challenged.
we will see if they dont self destruct before they create a more intelligent in silico species.