Has it been theoretically proven or dis-proven that a machine can generally think and communicate on its own?

Question

I am not looking for proof of AI (too broad, I know) concepts trying to solve a specific business problem, instead for a proof (or dis-proof) or a model (or a source of the same) where a machine is capable of

• General thinking and decision making.
• Collecting data as it see fit (use any channel at their disposal).
• Communicate as it see fit (with whom, how, where and when).
• Develop and evolve an agenda.

Note - I wrote an article more than 5 years ago - why a software cannot be intelligent. Since then I have not read a convincing argument against it.

Edit

Intelligence is the ability to take a decision in the unseen, unfamiliar, and unvisited circumstances. So, my definition of Artificial intelligence is - a machine doing essentially the same (doing, not replicating or simulating).

I am looking for a proof or disproof that machine is capable of doing things (written above), not the following

1. Instances where machine as simulated a certain aspect or property of intelligence.

2. Machine replicating a certain human behavior to achieve a goal.

Answer 1

We have not been able to create a truly intelligent AI yet, according to your definition. So we have no real life proof-of-concept that shows that it actually works.

But based on the current research, there is no known property of the human brain that cannot be modeled in software/hardware. We do not understand the human brain enough yet - and most likely lack the computational power and required storage - to create an artificial copy. But as long as we do not identify a property of the human brain that cannot be translated into a piece of software/hardware, it is most likely possible. I honestly cannot even imagine such a property within the bounds of physics that would create such a barrier.

Of course this is no formal proof, but without a clearly identified show-stopper there is no reason to believe that it is not possible to create a thinking machine.

Answer 2

We don't even know how to prove that humans think (or not) yet. Or maybe it would be better to say that we don't really know what thinking is. In either case, there doesn't seem to be much reason to think (heh) that a "machine thinking" needs to be the same as a "human thinking". So no, I don't think it's been formally proven that a machine cannot in principle be said to "think".

Roger Penrose wrote a long and somewhat controversial book explaining why machines can't think - The Emperor's New Mind. But I'm not aware of anybody who considers his argument definitive. Actually, I don't know of anybody who takes it very seriously at all these days.

In the end, I don't think it matters. We humans choose (or seem to choose) to think that we think, but external behavior is generally what we care about, not subjective internal mental states. So if a computer acts like it can think, does it really matter if it's "really" thinking or not?

Answer 3

General thinking seems as the toughest requirement to me. An AI looks at a new problem, tries to remember the most similar problem with a known solution and apply a similar solution to the new problem. It might try to guess how big mistake it has made and try to modify some parameters of the solution randomly (pseudo-randomly unless given a random or chaotic enough input such as a single wild animal behaviour or the weather).

A neural network given a hardware comparable in performance and storage capacity to the human brain and an insane quantity of input (e.g. the whole Internet including all attachable input devices) could probably be trained to mimic human general thinking believably enough. Some thinkers suggested that a human brain is basically just a very advanced machine.

My summer jobs made agree - as a postman, I performed better when I let my fingers find the mailbox not searching for it, and so did I as cashier, when my fingers would type in the correct code for the bakery products, fruits or vegetables (no barcode) without me even noticing what the goods were sometimes.

There might be some dis-proof based on an assumption that an AI is coded by humans using formal logic known to have some theoretical limits, which might be what you said in "Does software evolve?" in your article (nice job, by the way).

It almost becomes a religious question once you allow machines / algorithms to "breed" and "compete" as wildlife animals - would a long but finite time in an environment rich in resources and analog inputs be enough for an AI to evolve providing a finite set of environment parameters (gravitational constant etc.)? Reminds me of Just six numbers by Martin Rees.