s it really possible that machines could match man in a mere 21 years, as Ray Kurzweil claims in a BBC article?  And mind you, Kurzweil does not mean merely the capacity of human beings to calculate things and make educated guesses based upon probabilities.  He also means our emotional intelligence as well, where emotional intelligence is to be contrasted with raw intellectual ability.  Kurzweil rightly points out that machines already do lots of things better than human beings do them.  It is striking for instance just how far a computer can go in flying a jumbo jet.  Indeed, many landings in dense fog or heavy winds would be extremely difficult to pull off were it not for computers. 

Now, it is rather striking that Kurzweil insists that machines are not going to overtake and replace humanity.  It is not clear how he can reassure us in this regard, given his claim that machines will be our match on all fronts. 

But is Kurzweil’s confidence that machines will match human beings by 2029, even at the level of emotional intelligence, a bit premature.  I think so.  And if that is right, then machines may miss the mark in other areas of human intelligence as well. 

I wonder what evidence does he have that machines will match our emotional intelligence in a mere 20 years.  I have certainly not encountered anything that would suggest that this is the case—not even the machines that capture speech.  I have just called my Verizon telephone company and to the computer’s request to state my telephone number, I responded with a certain sternness “I don’t give a damn”.  I did so twice.  I then hung.  Upon calling back, I proceeded a little further as requested, I entered my phone number, and was then asked for another piece of information.  To that I responded: “You may go to hell”.  And to that utterance on my part, the computer responded: “That is 880, right?”

Perhaps in another three or four years from now, the computer will be offended and will respond with something like “You may kiss my nuts and bolts, you despicable instance of what they call a human being”. 

My point, of course, is that machines do not even come close to matching the emotional intelligence of human beings, even with something as simple as the utterance of hostile phrases. 

To take a different example pertaining to feelings, consider the sentiment of gratitude.  What makes gratitude so interesting is that it often has little to do with the monetary value of what was done or given and everything to do with the spirit with which the thing was done or given.  I have no idea how a machine is ever going to mirror this sentiment, let alone what kind of interaction with a computer would be necessary in order for that kind of gratitude on a computer’s part to be forthcoming. 

But now suppose that a machine could be offended or could mirror the sentiment of gratitude found in humans.  Then on the basis of what does Kurzweil claim that machines will not replace humans, given that machines can also match the intellectual intelligence of human beings? 

Now, I think that because machines are a very long ways of matching the emotional intelligence of human beings, then it is also the case that there are some fundamental aspects of intellectual intelligence that machines cannot equal.  What comes immediately to mind is imagination. 

Strikingly, imagination is often fueled by emotions.  Surely some of the greatest instances of poetry ever written were fueled by the experience of love.  The same holds for many, many songs.  And many majestic instances of behavior that have inspired the world are fueled by the emotions.  We have Helen Keller and Erik Weihenmayer, two blind people who displayed so much hope that they did the “impossible”.  And we have Raoul Wallenberg whose sense of justice moved him to risk his life in order to save numerous Jews. 

Is Ray Kurzweil suggesting that in a mere 21 years machines will be equaling human beings in these ways? 

Then there is the downside of things.  Bitterness and revenge have been the seed of enormous damage between human beings.  As we all know, holding a grudge is an art form for some individuals.  If machines will match the emotional intelligence of human beings in 2029, then it follows that machines will exhibit these hostile sentiments as well.  And if that is so, then once more the question arises: And why exactly is it that we would not have to fear machines taking over and replacing human beings? 

Kurzweil is a very, very bright man.  One can rightly wonder to what extent is he being merely hyperbolic.  As far as I can tell, though, he is being quite genuine.  If so, then the problem would appear to be that he is more than a little besotted by the success of technology thus far. 

No one can doubt that technological success has been exponential.  And while it is manifestly clear that machines can surpass human beings in terms of sheer powers of calculation, the sobering truth is that the reality of human beings is not even close to being exhausted by their powers of calculation.  Indeed, the evil that continues to plague the world and the absence of commonsense among human beings both serve as proof par excellence that powers of calculation do not exhaust human reality. 

The human being is a multifarious creature.  And we must be very careful not to focus upon one thing and then suppose that we have captured the essence of what it means to be a human being.  For in the end, so many of those other things are an ineliminable part of what it means to be a human being. 

Alas, Ray Kurzweil’s optimism underscores the point.  Do we want machines that can exhibit the optimism that Kurzweil exhibits?  I should think not.  For part of their reliability is tied to the fact that they do not.  There is no evidence that we are even close to having machines like that.  But if we are close to having such machines, then Kurzweil is absolutely wrong: We would have good reason to be rather concerned that our creation, namely machines, might occasion our demise.