Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is on the horizon, or so many experts in the field of artificial intelligence claim. Defined as the capacity for an AI system to undertake any cognitive task comparable to a well-educated human, AGI transcends the narrow capabilities of current artificial intelligences, which excel only in specific tasks. AI specialists envision a technology that can adeptly manage your taxes, solve your child's math problems, provide medical diagnoses, and even craft poetry—skills that rival the best human professionals across various domains. Many believe that AGI might arrive sooner rather than later, with some predictions suggesting a timeline as soon as 2026, as anticipated by Elon Musk in 2024, and most experts agreeing it could materialize by the decade's end.
However, experts may be misguided, as they often lack a comprehensive understanding of what intelligence truly entails. To illustrate, consider an individual who has mastered the art of dribbling a basketball to an extraordinary degree. Despite his unmatched skill, he struggles with shooting, passing, and defensive play. Would any NBA team want him on their roster? Highly unlikely; his specialized talent wouldn't outweigh the liabilities on the court.
AI operates similarly, showcasing brilliance in specific contexts but lacking broader intelligence. Recently, an AI made headlines by resolving a mathematical problem that had eluded experts for nearly a century—the Jacobian Conjecture. Additionally, AI can effectively assist with everyday challenges, offering solutions to users who are often oblivious to technical details, such as fixing vehicle malfunctions through simple queries and image inputs.
The excitement generated by AI milestones leads many to anticipate the imminent arrival of AGI, yet these impressive stories often obscure the significant limitations of AI, reflecting experts' misunderstandings of human intelligence. Many prominent figures in AI exhibit traits of social awkwardness, likely due to their extensive experience in digital environments rather than human interactions. Their focus on computer-based tasks restricts their perception of intelligence, which extends far beyond digital capabilities.
A crucial concept that proponents of AGI frequently overlook is what computer scientist Peter Denning describes as “tacit knowledge.” In his book, *Turing’s Mistake: Escaping the Yoke of Unintelligent Machines*, Denning explains that tacit knowledge includes aspects of human understanding that cannot be effectively communicated through language. Since AI systems rely on textual input for training, they inherently struggle to grasp these complexities, regardless of their sophistication.
Denning categorizes tacit knowledge in various forms, including common sense knowledge— the intuitive understanding we all possess but can’t articulate. In the 1980s, attempts such as the "Cyc" project aimed to encapsulate this common knowledge in a database, ultimately revealing the impossibility of comprehensively codifying everything known intuitively by people.
Another dimension of tacit knowledge involves emotional intelligence and perception. Consider how a close friend can discern your mood without needing verbal cues or how a charismatic individual can effortlessly command attention in a room. Similarly, conveying feelings associated with specific colors to someone who is color-blind poses challenges that language alone cannot address.
Cultural and social knowledge constitutes yet another facet of tacit understanding. Regional differences in customs and communication, like those between individuals from different parts of the United States, showcase types of knowledge that elude straightforward explanation.
This spectrum of tacit knowledge exemplifies a form of intelligence that current AI technologies cannot replicate. The conventional definition of AGI fails to encompass these essential cognitive attributes. As Pope Leo expressed in *Magnifica Humanitas*, “so-called artificial intelligences do not undergo experiences,” emphasizing that human intelligence is profoundly richer than many AI experts acknowledge.
Demis Hassabis, CEO of Google DeepMind and a leading figure in AGI research, characterized AGI as a system capable of showcasing the myriad competencies of humans. Yet, one must question whether he realistically expects an AI to perceive emotional subtleties or nuanced interpersonal dynamics like a human spouse can. Contemporary AI systems are still far from achieving this sophisticated layer of intelligence.
While some may regard these distinctions as mere semantic debates amid significant advancements in AI, the reality remains that rapid progress is expected. In the coming years, AI will indeed evolve and likely perform tasks with increased “intelligence,” however defined. Understanding the nuances of intelligence is critical in navigating this conversation, particularly for those within the Catholic community.
Rather than rejecting AI outright as unnatural or blindly accepting expert projections of impending AGI, it is vital to find a balanced approach. Dismissing AI advancements would overlook the inventive capabilities that humanity has to harness tools for progress. Conversely, endorsing an as-yet-unrealized AGI threatens to undermine the essence of human intelligence by reducing it to mere computational functions. This fall, my forthcoming book, *The Catholic Guide to Artificial Intelligence*, aims to equip readers with insights to engage thoughtfully in the evolving AI landscape.
Human intellect, designed in the image of God, encompasses far more than raw computational power or pattern recognition. It connects us to the very essence of Reality, which is God, enabling us to experience profound emotional states and personal insights that no machine can replicate. Machines cannot comprehend the horizons of love revealed with the birth of a grandchild, nor can they sympathize with human grief through personal loss or understand trust in divine wisdom during challenging times.
While advancements in AI are undoubtedly on the way, the realization of AGI—unless defined in a strictly reductive sense—is far from certain. The narrative of approaching AGI is often fueled by a blend of misinterpretation of human capabilities and marketing enthusiasm. Each AI development, regardless of scale, tends to come attached with lofty promises of transformative technology. This trend underscores a limited perception of humanity, particularly regarding our intellectual depth. The appropriate response should prioritize valuing and acknowledging the intricate and multifarious nature of human intelligence, rather than fixating solely on the technological marvels we craft.
