I have a couple more
7. Come clean about the fact that machines can’t actually learn
Admit to the public that machines can’t learn. Simply say loud and clear that the term machine learning is composed of two words that (by their very definitions) when combined in that order result in a logical contradiction and a thing which is logically impossible. If a machine could learn it would no longer be a machine. Describe in plain English how that fancy sounding modifier word “deep” as in “deep learning” that feels so important, so interesting, and so meaningful, is actually nothing more than hedge modifier term which can mean whatever one wants it to mean, and sounds really cool at the same time. Explain that deep learning is nothing more than a pseudo-concept based on the logical contradiction that is machine learning. ‘Deep learning’, just like ‘machine learning’, is not learning, it is nothing more than a form of modern computing, powerful, yes, interesting, yes, useful, no doubt, learning, no.
8. Admit that artificial intelligence does not currently exist and it may never
Finally tell the public that there is not a single artificially intelligent computer or machine anywhere on, below, or above the surface of the earth at the present moment and that it is possible, likely even, that artificial intelligence may never exist. Take out a giant ad in the New York Times and say to the world in giant bold letters —Extra, extra, Read All About It! Artificial Intelligence Is Nothing More Than Another Way of Saying Modern Computing! They could soften the blow some by explaining how we don’t even have an agreed upon definition of what actual, natural intelligence is, so it would be hubris of the highest order and plain ridiculous to claim we have created an artificial version of it. Moreover, they could talk about how things like artificial neural networks that they have implied are key components of many artificial intelligences are not actually modeled on the human brain but are in fact modeled on various theories of the structure/function of the human brain. Furthermore that theories abound that attempt to describe the structure of various neural networks in the brain, how they are organized, how they function, and ultimately how/if they are important to human intelligence/consciousness or a million other more mundane processes. Ultimately, it is still not even “proven” that such networks exist, let alone that they are somehow the key structures that should be the focal point of any model attempting to mimic how the human brain works. Each of these theories has a viable claim to some level of “correctness” and corresponding data to support it. None are completely accurate and no doubt most are mostly wrong. They could wrap it up by explaining that depending on the whims of the particular programmers/engineers designing/programming any particular artificial neural network they might select any of fifty competing theories of neuronal structure and function to model. Mostly, because they are ignorant of the complexities of biology and neuroscience they will select the most tried and true/easiest/most previously used approaches. These will be incorrect and will produce the exact same non-intelligent, non learning machines they have been producing since day 1 of their ridiculous quest for artificial intelligence way back in the 1950s. They could end by apologizing for wasting so much time and effort in their attempt to create an artificial intelligence when we have yet to understand actual, natural intelligence. Of course the apology would also have to include sincere regret for misleading everyone so badly and an admission that the only reason they started calling machines/gadgets/computers artificially intelligent was because they sold more of them then when they just called them new machines/gadgets/modern computers.