What NOT to think about the machines that think (or not to think at all really)

I am half way through this very worthwhile book: "What do you think about machines that think?". 192 biggest thinkers from various fields all answer subj: question.

It's a great book. However, being a book about a murky subject, it is also a perfect showcase for the biases of human thinking. It really should come bundled with this other awesome free e-book: "Illustrated book of Bad Arguments". Cause it certainly is full of bias:

• Argument from Consequences: machines can't think because it is dangerous.
• Equivocation: how can machine think if thinking is such a big part of being spiritual.
• False Dilemma: machines either need to think like we do or they can't think.
• Appeal to Fear: thinking machines will spell the end of human species.
• Appeal to Ignorance: it is impossible to imagine thinking machines, therefore it will not happen.
• No True Scotsman: no truly ethical scientist will develop thinking machines.
• Genetic Fallacy: of course they say machines can think; these come from crazy Silicon Valley place.
• Guilt by Association: only socialists would want thinking machines.
• Affirming the Consequent: dangerous things can come from technology, thinking machines are technology therefore they are dangerous.
• Slippery Slope: first they think, then they kill us all.
• Circular Reasoning: thinking machines can't happen because they can't think.
• Composition and Division: machines consist of silicon, silicon is sand and it does not think, so machines can't think.

For me the bets one is from Freeman Dyson:

I do not believe that machines that think exist, or that they are likely to exist in the foreseeable future. If I am wrong, as I often am, any thoughts I might have about the question are irrelevant. If I am right, then the whole question is irrelevant.

Originally published on LinkedIn.