"I think, (therefore) I exist/am"
According to Meditation 2, Descartes says that the only thing he knows with certainty is that due to our ability to think, we know we exist.
Through our consciousness, we exist.
This then leads me to the following question:
Is artificial intelligence considered consciousness?
If it is, then the statement holds true. If it isn't, there lies alternative possibilities for the conception of knowledge.
The Radical Skeptical Theory states that the reality all of us perceive may in fact be an illusion to what is TRULY reality. (Ex - Brain in the Vat, The Matrix, God or an evil spirit deceiving us).
Through the examples listed above, the human mind is being deceived. However, through the concept of AI, it is possible that a "robot" or any other form of machinery with AI is being deceived (or programmed) into perceiving reality the same way we perceive it.
Descartes is false since there lies the possibility that our lives may be interpreted not only through a MEANS of AI, but AI itself.
A robot may be simulating a life through its thought processes, and it is possible that I am that robot itself.
First, there are quite a few threads in the Rene Descartes section in the Philosophers forum which may be of use to you and your question which deal with this very issue.
I can agree with the underlying conclusion that (as far as the beginning of mediation is concerned) the only thing he knows with certainty (knows clearly and distinctly) is that his cognition implies his existence.
Your restatement of the radical skepticism theory (known to others as universal skepticism, universal doubt, etc.) is also well put. What is thrown into doubt in meditation one is only that which is not known clearly and distinctly, for what may be perceived may
be real, only we cannot know for certain... so we must doubt what we do not know clearly and distinctly.
As far as artificial intelligence being considered consciousness, I would wonder whether or not this is in fact the argument Descartes is putting forward in the first place. Descartes puts forward universal doubt in meditation one, and at the end of meditation 2 concludes that both he exists and his thoughts exist (leading him into meditation 3 where he attempts to prove that other things exist). But a large portion of meditation 2 is devoted to the support of rationalism and a-priori notions, that is, that knowledge comes before the senses. With this in mind, would it not be the case that if Descartes himself is fundamentally based in a-priori principles, he himself is artificial intelligence, programmed from the start (contrary to empiricists like Locke who would say at birth one is begun tabula rasa)?
After your statement of the question you state that were it the case that artificial intelligence were considered consciousness, then the statement holds true. In what sense would it hold true? Descartes has not resolved universal doubt, since he has a long work ahead of him to find out what he knows clearly and distinctly. The truth is somewhat farther down the road. Then you say if it isn't the case that artificial intelligence is considered consciousness, then there are alternatives for the conception of knowledge. To tell the truth, both of these choices are perfectly fit into the context of Descartes text, which is that knowledge is either Descartes a-priori knowledge (inherent in the rationalist perspective) or the latter a-posteriori empiricist type.
But the issue I see is in your conclusion. I take a lot of your arguments before the conclusion as round-about points for a-priori and a-posteriori distinctions. One thing that is essential to consider, at least in terms of modern philosophy, is the refutation of innate ideas (the substance of a-priori knowledge) for empirical study. John Locke, Hume, Berkeley, and all other empiricists make a clear refutation before moving on with their own respective empirical perspectives. AI in a way is determined by innate ideas, and any modus of falsity I would think has to include the refutation of such a notion. In the case of the robot, the robot in either case may be working on a predefined program (a-priori) whose cognizance is reliant in any case.
But about AI in general, you may be interested in this book. Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid
by Douglas Hofstadter. I've never read a more complicated book, but the underlying theme of the book is artificial intelligence. Among the central questions asked are exactly how the self comes out of things which have no self. He then gets into elaborate notions of formal logical systems, godel's incompleteness theorem, and the isomorphic comparisons between the inanimate and the animate, like a relationship between geometrical certainties and biological minutia. Its heavy on musical theory, art, number theory and a large part of logic, but it is a very rewarding read.