Howard Rheingold Quotes

I'd rather see artificial intelligence than no intelligence.

If you wanted to design a robot that could learn as well as it possibly could, you might end up with something that looked a lot like a 3-year-old.

Our computers double in capability on time scales of only a few years. It's hardly outrageous to believe that we will successfully develop thinking machines within a handful of decades, or at most a century or two. If that happens, these artificial sentients will quickly leave us behind.

The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.

My background really comes from geekdom and the idea of building a smart machine. If we're going to build a smart machine, let's have it read good books.

When people speak of creating superhumanly intelligent beings, they are usually imagining an AI project.

Some claim that computers will, by 2050, achieve human capabilities. Of course, in some respects they already have.

Artificial intelligence will reach human levels by around 2029. Follow that out further to, say, 2045, we will have multiplied the intelligence, the human biological machine intelligence of our civilization a billion-fold.

This is a magical time for computer programming. We are moving towards the artifical intelligence holy grail of programming the computer to simulate the human brain.

The thing that's going to make artificial intelligence so powerful is its ability to learn, and the way AI learns is to look at human culture.

AI2 was born from a desire to create a system that could truly reason about knowledge, rather than just offer up what had been written on a subject before.

In order to be truly intelligent, computers must understand - that is probably the critical word.

We humans are not the end of evolution, so if we can make a machine that's as smart as a person, we can probably also make one that's much smarter. There's no point in making just another person. You want to make one that can do things we can't.

We want to build intelligence that augments human abilities and experiences.

Some people call this artificial intelligence, but the reality is this technology will enhance us. So instead of artificial intelligence, I think we'll augment our intelligence.

We need to build EQ in our AI systems because, otherwise, they're not going to be as effective as they were designed to be.

If you step back a little and say we want to do A.I., then you will realize that A.I. needs knowledge, reasoning, and explanation.

My own work falls into a subset of AI that is about building artificial emotional intelligence, or Emotion AI for short.

There's a great phrase, written in the '70s: 'The definition of today's AI is a machine that can make a perfect chess move while the room is on fire.' It really speaks to the limitations of AI. In the next wave of AI research, if we want to make more helpful and useful machines, we've got to bring back the contextual understanding.

Sometimes it seems as though each new step towards AI, rather than producing something which everyone agrees is real intelligence, merely reveals what real intelligence is not.

I think that the artificial-intelligence people are making a lot of noise recently, claiming that artificial intelligence is making huge progress and we're going to be outstripped by the machines.

Machines are on track to be on par with human intelligence in less than 15 years.

It's hard to guess how smart the machines are, but a good rule of thumb is that they're always smarter than you think.

Once upon a time ... the only autonomous intelligences we humans knew of were us humans. We thought then that if humankind ever devised another intelligence that it would be the result of a huge project ... a great mass of silicon and ancient transistors and chips and circuit boards ... a machine with lots of networking circuits, in other words, aping-if you will pardon the expression-the human brain in form and function. Of course, AIs did not evolve that way. They sort of slipped into existence when we humans were looking the other way.

If a machine is expected to be infallible, it cannot also be intelligent.