In a podcast at ID The Future, Walter Bradley Center director Robert J. Marks talked with host Casey Luskin about claims, games, and realities around artificial intelligence:

In the course of the fast-paced interview, Marks touches on dystopian AI and the limits of computer algorithms (they can never do anything that is inherently non-computable, Marks argues), and discuss celebrity thinkers and entrepreneurs who’ve weighed in on the promises and perils of AI, such as Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and Stephen Hawking. Marks calls on Nobel Laureate Roger Penrose to second one of Marks’s central arguments.

The occasion for the conversation is Marks’s chapter in the recent Harvest House anthology, The Comprehensive Guide to Science and Faith. (2021) Marks and Luskin also touch on Marks’s work assessing computer programs designed to try to demonstrate the efficacy of mindless evolutionary mechanisms to produce dramatic evolutionary innovations in the history of life. Marks is skeptical that these programs demonstrate any such thing, and indeed, argues that they tend to demonstrate just the opposite. He lays out the reasons for his skepticism in a new video course at DiscoveryU.org. Check it out.

Casey Luskin, “Bob Marks on Why AI Won’t Destroy the World, or Save It” at ID The Future (Episode 1553, January 19, 2022, 20:08 min)

Note: Both the Terminator and Skynet were let go for antisocial behavior in the workplace.

You may also wish to read:

Why human creativity is not computable There is a paradox involved with computers and human creativity, something like Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems or the Smallest Uninteresting Number. Creativity is what we don’t know. Once it is reduced to a formula a computer can use, it is not creative any more, by definition. (Robert J. Marks interviews mathematician Gregory Chaitin.)

and

Can we write creative computer programs? As Robert J. Marks tells World Radio, people have tried making computers creative but no luck. Programmers cannot write programs that are more creative than they themselves are.