Islamic Ruling on AI (Artificial Intelligence)?

[Serinity]

What is the ruling on AI?

And Allah :swt: knows best.

 

[kritikvernunft]

What is the ruling on AI?

One problem will certainly be that "artificial intelligence" is a contradictory term.

If there exists an algorithm for a computer device to carry out a calculation, this calculation does not require intelligence. Generally spoken, if a computation can be executed by a computing device, it means that the computation does not require more than an underlying (Turing-complete) instruction set. A contemporary CPU with support for arithmetic, logic, and branching will by definition suffice.

These basic instructions are utmost simple. They are not considered "intelligent". A young child can learn to do them. A computing device just does them very fast. A predictable composition -- no matter how complex -- of such simple basic instructions, would in my opinion still not be intelligent. The other way around is true too. If the composition of such instructions is not predictable, it will also be impossible to test. It will therefore also not be a valid program for execution by a computing device.

For example, "computer vision" is considered by some people to be "artificial intelligent". The problem is that the implementation of computer vision software (such as opencv) mostly rests on wavelet mathematics proposed by Alfred Haar in 1909, and that there are good reasons to object the practice of calling applications of mathematics "artificial intelligence". That is really a misnomer. Mathematics are not some kind of "artificial intelligence".

On the other hand, software implementations that have no basis in mathematics are always snake oil. In that case, we are not dealing with "artificial intelligence" but with clever attempts to mislead you into believing that it is.

There are many things that computers cannot do, and some (but not all) of these things are considered "intelligent". If we manage to make these computers do these things, it means that we came to understand their mathematical basis. This certainly happens once in a while. However, mathematics will never be "artificial intelligence".

In fact, "artificial intelligence" is mostly a nebulous term that cash-strapped academic researchers use in order to obtain speculative funding from gullible government funding agencies.

 

[Serinity]

One problem will certainly be that "artificial intelligence" is a contradictory term.

If there exists an algorithm for a computer device to carry out a calculation, this calculation does not require intelligence. Generally spoken, if a computation can be executed by a computing device, it means that the computation does not require more than an underlying (Turing-complete) instruction set. A contemporary CPU with support for arithmetic, logic, and branching will by definition suffice.

These basic instructions are utmost simple. They are not considered "intelligent". A young child can learn to do them. A computing device just does them very fast. A predictable composition -- no matter how complex -- of such simple basic instructions, would in my opinion still not be intelligent. The other way around is true too. If the composition of such instructions is not predictable, it will also be impossible to test. It will therefore also not be a valid program for execution by a computing device.

For example, "computer vision" is considered by some people to be "artificial intelligent". The problem is that the implementation of computer vision software (such as opencv) mostly rests on wavelet mathematics proposed by Alfred Haar in 1909, and that there are good reasons to object the practice of calling applications of mathematics "artificial intelligence". That is really a misnomer. Mathematics are not some kind of "artificial intelligence".

On the other hand, software implementations that have no basis in mathematics are always snake oil. In that case, we are not dealing with "artificial intelligence" but with clever attempts to mislead you into believing that it is.

There are many things that computers cannot do, and some (but not all) of these things are considered "intelligent". If we manage to make these computers do these things, it means that we came to understand their mathematical basis. This certainly happens once in a while. However, mathematics will never be "artificial intelligence".

In fact, "artificial intelligence" is mostly a nebulous term that cash-strapped academic researchers use in order to obtain speculative funding from gullible government funding agencies.

Thinkin about it - it is NOT artificial intelligence. At most, it is humans imposing their intelligence on the object/programming it.

A computer can not self-learn. It is already taught. It is impossible for a machine to be self-conscious.

Only Allah can create a soul.

So what is AI? I find it far-fetched to read that machines can have "thoughts of their own" and that they can think, and imitate/simulate the human mind.

I think we are moving into to terratory of image makers. Whom are punished.

 

[noraina]

Wa alaykum assalam,

I suppose, making humanoid robots in general would fall into the realm of image-making, I mean it's a step way ahead from drawing portraits.

We can all unanimously agree that creating a soul, or a life, is entirely in the hands of Allah swt. Scientists who support AI claim they could creative something which can independently create thoughts and has an intelligence of its own, and may even someday in the future have 'feelings'. Is it possible for humans to recreate intelligence and emotions, I've always seen them as being unique to having a soul, not separate.

Although the idea's a little farfetched atm, and besides, haven't all the films told us one day the robots will override the systems and make mankind their slaves ? Remember iRobot? It's a bad idea to entertain anyway.

 

[Huzaifah ibn Adam]

Robots have already started taking over the jobs of people. They want to replace chefs, waiters, hotel workers, cleaners, etc. with robots. A robot to make your food and another robot to deliver it.

But such a world will be too "plastic", I think. Wouldn't want to live in a world like that.

 

[Serinity]

Robots have already started taking over the jobs of people. They want to replace chefs, waiters, hotel workers, cleaners, etc. with robots. A robot to make your food and another robot to deliver it.

But such a world will be too "plastic", I think. Wouldn't want to live in a world like that.

I think it will increase depression. People are trying to replace those who care for elders with robots...... I feel sorry for the elders.

Only Allah can create something that gives joy, actual joy. I think. Allahu alam.

 

[Huzaifah ibn Adam]

True. And it will take the jobs of a lot of people away. Basically one of the only jobs that will remain is being a robot's mechanic...

 

[kritikvernunft]

Robots have already started taking over the jobs of people.

There is at least one serious problem with that view. For example, the planet has 7.5+ billion people. The capacity to feed this population without using mechanical and biochemical means is limited to approximately 1 billion people; as around the turn of the previous century. Without any agriculture at all -- which is one of the first technologies -- the earth could feed less than 0.1 billion people. The improvements in agricultural technology have allowed the expansion of these numbers. If we abolish it, we will have a reduction in these numbers. I do not believe that anybody of us would agree to take that responsibility.

They want to replace chefs, waiters, hotel workers, cleaners, etc. with robots. A robot to make your food and another robot to deliver it.

These are jobs that are actually not being replaced by technology. It is more professions like truck drivers (and even taxi drivers) that seem to be next. For example, waiter is a job with quite a bit of human interaction expected. I do not believe that anybody is actually working on trying to replace waiters by technology. It looks so pointless. Truck drivers, however, do not meaningfully interact with other people, though. Only with the machine that they drive ...

 

[Huzaifah ibn Adam]

There is at least one serious problem with that view. For example, the planet has 7.5+ billion people. The capacity to feed this population without using mechanical and biochemical means is limited to approximately 1 billion people; as around the turn of the previous century. Without any agriculture at all -- which is one of the first technologies -- the earth could feed less than 0.1 billion people. The improvements in agricultural technology have allowed the expansion of these numbers. If we abolish it, we will have a reduction in these numbers. I do not believe that anybody of us would agree to take that responsibility.

These are jobs that are actually not being replaced by technology. It is more professions like truck drivers (and even taxi drivers) that seem to be next. For example, waiter is a job with quite a bit of human interaction expected. I do not believe that anybody is actually working on trying to replace waiters by technology. It looks so pointless. Truck drivers, however, do not meaningfully interact with other people, though. Only with the machine that they drive ...

That's true.