« Ada - der intelligente Raum » - Universität und ETH Zürich an der Expo.02


		Uses and limitations
		Statements
			Rodney Douglas
			Paul Verschure
			François Höpflinger
			Rolf Pfeifer
			Peter Stamm
			Ray Kurzweil
		Feedback
		Competition

Peter Stamm, Writer and Journalist



Photo Mirjam Wirz, 1999

Peter Stamm, born 1963, is a freelance author and journalist. After completing a commercial apprenticeship, he studied English literature, psychology and psychopathology for a number of semesters and spent extensive period of time abroad. He has worked at and for various radio stations, and written plays, novels and contributions for numerous books.
www.peterstamm.ch

The following pieces were written for the newspapers «Metropol» and «Nebelspalter.»

Dumb futurologists, dumb computers (Dumme Futurologen, dumme Computer)

In the 1970s, recognised scientists prophesied that computer intelligence would overtake that of humans by the year 2000. Yet today, computers are still unable to do anything beyond what they used to: compute. Now they just do it faster. For there has never been a computer built that even approaches something like intelligence. Quite simply because no one has a clue regarding how intelligence functions, how emotions are created, what consciousness is. Computers can play chess because chess functions according to simple rules. Yet the world does not function according to rules. When it comes to understanding a sentence or even having an emotion, computers fail miserably.

(From: Peter Stamm: Dumme Futurologen. Dumme Computer. Column in «Metropol», 7 January 2002, p. 7.)






				complete text in German

Perhaps they’ll do dangerous things with one another (Vielleicht werden sie gefährliche Dinge miteinander tun)

There is probably no other scientific field that has promised as much as Artificial Intelligence (AI). Back in 1971, a Cambridge University report delivered to the British Government stated: «In no area of AI have the discoveries to date actually led to the promised effects.» At the time, recognised scientists prophesied «that the possibilities of the 1980s would include universal intelligence with a human knowledge base» and that it should be kept in mind that computer intelligence would overtake that of humans by 2000 – a prophecy that had already been made fifteen years prior. Well, they were mistaken, these esteemed information technology experts. Yet that does not stop their successors today from making predictions that are equally preposterous. As long as the date is far enough in the future, the same sort of rubbish can be proclaimed again and again. Like the astrologists, the artificial intelligentsia merrily speculate away and trust that in twenty years no one will still remember their fantasies.

But what makes computer scientists think of comparing their computers with our brain. Just because they can both perform calculations? No one would ever compare a barrel with a stomach, even though they can both be filled with wine. No one would compare a hammer with a hand, even if they can both drive in a nail – the hammer is anyway better than a hand. And furthermore, a gingerbread man is no homunculus, even if the two may have some common features. So what makes the computer scientists compare their machines with the brain of all things? Computers are certainly fantastic tools, that’s beyond dispute. They can do lots of things, amazing things. But a brain has some hundred billion cells, each with hundreds of links to other cells. In and of itself, the brain is already a greater marvel than any computer. It is not enough to simply count zeroes and compare gigabytes with gigabytes.

(From: Peter Stamm: «Vielleicht werden sie gefährliche Dinge miteinander tun.» In «Nebelspalter», 10 July 1995.)






				complete text in German