196
RICHARD POIRIER
To say that, however, need not inexorably direct our exalta–
tions of the species to a literary as distinct from a scientific cul–
ture. Part of the fear of technology as expressed in the Shelleyan
promotion of art and of the artist is really a fear among certain
cultural elitists about the continued predominance of the written
word, of literature, and of the edified past. It is odd that contem–
porary radicalism is--if looked at radically--so finally conserva–
tive. But it is. I look in vain for the kind of nice, open, brave
remark made by Stanley Kubrick when he was prompted to talk
about the affection induced in
2001
for the computer named Hal:
One of the fascinating questions that arise in envisioning
computers more intelligent than men is at what point
machine intelligence deserves the same consideration as bio–
logical intelligence. Once a computer learns by experience as
well as by its original programming, and once it has access to
much more information than any number of human geniuses
might possess, the first thing that happens is that you don't
really understand it any more, and you don't know what it's
doing or thinking about. You could be tempted to ask your–
self in what way is machine intelligence any less sacrosanct
than biological intelligence, and it might be difficult to arrive
at an answer flattering to biological intelligence.
