Skip to main content

Beyond Zero and One - Andrew Smart ***

This is an unusual book, in a small pocket-sized format that reminds me of the old science fiction doubles pocket books. Apart from their small size, these books had a special trick up their sleeve, because when you flipped them over, the back was a cover for a different book - each copy held two books, starting from opposite ends. Beyond Zero and One may be a single title, but it too has very different topics that Andrew Smart wants to convince us go naturally together: artificial intelligence and the drug LSD.

As we go, in a rather rambling fashion, in the first topic, Smart takes us through the nature of artificial intelligence, how likely it is that computers could become truly intelligent and/or conscious and explores a little of the nature of consciousness himself. As far as the second goes, we get a really interesting description of his one and only LSD trip, details of its chemical structure and possible method of the drug's operation, its history and how it has been used. However, these two parts to the book are not structurally separate, but interwoven.

So what's going on here? Why are these two apparently unconnected things together? Because Smart believes that an LCD experience is not a true hallucination, but rather an opening up of the subjective side of our perception. He thinks that the ability to have this kind of altered perception is a fundamental aspect of consciousness (I think - his arguments are not all very clear), and as such, if we could give LSD to a supposed AI (he doesn't propose a mechanism for doing this, as there would be much point simply dripping the chemical substance into it), then it would give us great insights into the nature of consciousness and intelligence. Quite why, I'm not really sure.

Each of the two significant parts of the book has some genuinely interesting bits. I didn't know much about LCD, and that aspect is highly informative, while some of the sections on intelligent computers are genuinely fascinating. When, for example, Smart counters the assurance of the likes of Ray Kurzweil that true AI is just around the corner and will be stable and problem free, Smart points out the dangers of Byzantine faults, which stress error correction mechanisms to the point of collapse and could ensure that any computer capable of intelligence was unable to run without failure.

The problem with the book is that it is difficult to uncover any good reason for putting the two topics together. Smart makes arguments from the Kantian idea that we can't perceive reality, just a subjective model of it. This is clearly true to a degree. For example, what we see as our visual field, looking out on the world, is assembled from a set of inputs of things like shapes and shades - it's not a camera view, which is why optical illusions occur and we don't notice saccades where our eyes jerk around. However Smart has a tendency to go too far with this to asserting that perceptions are no different from hallucinations, as our waking experience is a construct of the brain.

The trouble with this approach is that we have far too good an agreement over how we interpret what we perceive for it to be subjective enough to draw the parallels that Smart makes. For example, he says that colour does not exist outside our brains saying 'the redness of the apple is entirely constructed in your brain.' In reality it's only partly constructed in the brain. The colour of an object is a response to the energy of photons it emits - in the case of this apple, they are in the range of the spectrum identified as red. The fact that the red light is far more intense on a sunny beach than on your desk on a rainy day, which Smart uses to suggest that colour is purely subjective, is about number of photons, not photon energy. And that is not subjective.

In making the steps he has to take to link his topics, Smart goes too far in attempting to show that all perception is subjective. We all, after all, agree that what perceive as a cliff is a cliff. It's not subjective, and anyone who argues otherwise is welcome to walk off it to prove otherwise. There are also rather too many assumptions made. At one point, for instance, Smart claims that 'a strong AI would have to be conscious' - but he doesn't justify this in the face of, for instance, the evidence that the vast majority of brain activity is unconscious.

I was also a little worried that someone writing a book with computing at its heart could make as fundamental an error as to say that the IBM Watson computer has '80 teraflops of memory and 15 terabytes of RAM.' No - RAM is memory, and teraflops is a measure of the number of floating point operations the computer can make in a second: it has nothing to do with memory.

Despite the flaws in the book, there's much to get you thinking about the nature of artificial intelligence and consciousness (plus that second topic of LSD, which is also eye-opening if you have no experience of the culture that might use it). Beyond Zero and One is a thought provoking book - it's just that a fair amount of the time, the thoughts provoked may not be in agreement with those the author wants to promote.

Paperback: Available from the publisher's website

Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Nobody Understands Quantum Physics - Frank Verstraete and Céline Broeckaert **

It's with a heavy heart that I have to say that I could not get on with this book. The structure is all over the place, while the content veers from childish remarks to unexplained jargon. Frank Versraete is a highly regarded physicist and knows what he’s talking about - but unfortunately, physics professors are not always the best people to explain physics to a general audience and, possibly contributed to by this being a translation, I thought this book simply doesn’t work. A small issue is that there are few historical inaccuracies, but that’s often the case when scientists write history of science, and that’s not the main part of the book so I would have overlooked it. As an example, we are told that Newton's apple story originated with Voltaire. Yet Newton himself mentioned the apple story to William Stukeley in 1726. He may have made it up - but he certainly originated it, not Voltaire. We are also told that ‘Galileo discovered the counterintuitive law behind a swinging o...
Post a Comment
Read more

How to Keep a Plane in the Sky - Alex Davies ****

If there's one big gap in the science writing sphere, it's popular engineering (you can quibble over whether engineering is science, but where else would you put popular engineering?). Alex Davies does the field a real service with this insightful introduction to the world of test engineering. The concept is simple. If we build something and sell it, we need to test it to make sure that it won't fail in a way that's dangerous to the consumer. The most obvious example is airliners, which feature at some length, but this applies to everything from cuddly toys to hair straighteners: someone needs to predict what could go wrong and to put the product through its paces to see if it will survive under any reasonable circumstances. When Davies is telling a story of test engineering in action, the book is a delight. He opens with the way that real bears are used to test if bears can get into coolers and trash cans - and the impressive ways these animals can  circumvent human in...
Post a Comment
Read more

On the Equality of All Things - Carlo Rovelli ****

There is a wide gulf between the worldviews of physicists and philosophers. Many physicists present a rather sweetly naive, child-like view of the world, where philosophers bring a distinctly more adult, cynical tone. This being the case, it can be a little worrying when a physicist dips a toe into the philosophical mire. Infamously, in The Grand Design , Stephen Hawking and co-author Leonard Mlodinow told us that philosophy was now dead because science could deal with anything it had previously been needed for. Thankfully, Carlo Rovelli is not trying to do away with philosophy, though it has to be said that when he veers into the topic that physicist's naivety can make it feel like the philosophising of an earnest eighteen-year-old. Take the opening paragraph, which tells us 'electrons and minds, stones and laws, judgements and galaxies do not essentially differ in nature from one another. They are notions that illuminate each other'. I almost expected a Pink Floyd soundtr...
Post a Comment
Read more