A New Artificial Intelligence 4

1. A New Artificial Intelligence 4 Kevin Warwick

2. Philosophy of AI • The philosophy behind AI has played a critical role in the subject’s development • What does it mean for a machine to think? • Can a machine be conscious? • Can a machine fool you, in conversation, into thinking it is actually human? • Is this important? • In looking into the minds of machines we must ask fundamental questions about ourselves

3. Human-centric • The philosophical study of artificial intelligence has been dogged by the desire to regard human intelligence as something special • To show how computers can’t do some of the things that human brains do • Therefore computers are somehow inferior • This is understandable, after all we are human and it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that the human way of doing things is the best way

4. Objective Study • It is difficult to be objective about something when you are immersed in it on a daily basis • Ask any academic researcher whose research program is the most important – they will tell you it is theirs • So we face a problem with human intelligence • To get around this, external assessment is required. • We need knowledgeable sources who will give us an unbiased view.

5. You are an Alien! • We must compare in a scientific way – perhaps some aspects are more important to one person than they are to another. • To study the philosophy of artificial intelligence we need to start by carrying out an independent assessment of intelligence • You need to forget that you are human and to look at human intelligence from the outside • You are an alien with no bias towards humans and you must assess the intelligence of the entities that you observe on earth.

6. Starting Point • Let’s look at some of the misconceptions and biases that can occur • With artificial intelligence we are not necessarily trying to copy (simulate) the workings of the human brain • This said - one interesting question is: could we copy/simulate the human brain with an artificial intelligent brain?

7. Randomness • We all fall into simple traps when studying AI and the human brain • Consider random behavior • It might be said that computers think in a mechanistic, programmed way whereas humans can think randomly • This is incorrect – all human thoughts are from and in our brains and are based on the genetic make up of our brains and what we have learnt in our lives • Whilst an act may appear random to an outside observer, this is simply because they do not understand the reasoning behind it. Anything you do or say will have been based on the signals in your brain • As a test – do something randomly, say something at random – whatever your response you will have made a conscious decision

8. Penrose’s Pitfall I • Roger Penrose said: “there is a great deal of randomness in the (human) brain’s wiring” • This is simply not true • A human brain is a complex network of highly connected brain cells, the connections have been made due to biological growth - directed by our genetic make up and learning • Because something is complex and difficult to understand this does not mean it is random • If you do not understand what is going on, a telephone exchange can appear complex – it does not act randomly, otherwise we would never be able to make a telephone call – we could be connected with absolutely anyone (at random).

9. Penrose’s Pitfall II • Do you agree with these Penrose statements? • “Genuine intelligence requires that genuine understanding must be present” - “intelligence requires understanding”. • “Actual understanding could not be achieved by any computer”. Computers will never be able to understand. • “Computers will always remain subservient to us (humans), no matter how far they advance”. • This is all pure Hollywood, fantasy land!

10. Let’s be serious! • When one cow Moos to another they presumably have some concept of what is being uttered, they often seem to respond. • One cow appears to understand another cow. But do we humans understand them, can we communicate with them? From this, Penrose logic follows - • Humans do not ‘genuinely understand’ cows etc, therefore we are not as intelligent as them. • As a result we will always be subservient to them – cows will rule the earth!! • The argument is just plain silly – so, in the same way, is Penrose’s argument for computers to always be subservient to humans.

11. To the point • Computers may well understand things in a different way to humans, animals understand things in a different way to humans, some humans probably understand some things in different ways to other humans. • This doesn’t make one intelligent and another not. It means that one is intelligent in a different way to another. It’s all subjective. • As for computers always being subservient - that is pure fiction. It may make someone feel nice to say that, but there is no logic to it at all. It’s a cocoa statement! • When the Aztecs and the Red Indians were defeated by Europeans, the ‘better’, more intelligent, culture lay with the home teams. The invaders brought technology that the home teams didn’t understand. Because something is not intelligent in the same way as we are does not mean it will always be subservient to us!

12. Weak AI • The possibility that machines can act intelligently as a human does or act as if they were intelligent as a human is referred to as Weak AI • This stems from Minsky’s definition of AI - machines do things that appear to be intelligent acts • This concept is though not accepted by some.

13. Argument from disability • Computers can now do many things better than humans do - things we feel require understanding – playing chess, mathematics • The “argument from disability” as Turing said is that some will say “a machine can never ….” Examples given by Turing are: “be kind, resourceful, beautiful, friendly, have initiative, have a sense of humor, tell right from wrong, make mistakes, fall in love, enjoy strawberries and cream, etc”. • There is no reason that a computer could not do any of these • Whether a computer does them in the same way as a human, whether it ‘understands’ are quite different questions. • We can’t know whether another human ‘understands’ or ‘feels’ things in the same way that we do. The person may say, and think that, they understand – but do they? How can we be sure?

14. Strong AI • The possibility that a machine can actually think in the same way as a human, as opposed simply to appearing to simulate human thinking, is referred to as Strong AI • This would mean that it would be possible to build a computer that completely replicated the functioning of the human brain in every aspect.

15. Brain in a Vat Experiment • When you are born your brain is removed and placed in a vat • It is kept alive and fed with suitable nutrients to allow it to grow and develop connections • Signals are sent to the brain to feed it with a purely fictional world and motor signals from the brain are sent to the world such that your brain is able to modify it and move around in it • The world appears to be real • In theory your brain, in this state, could have the same sort of feelings and emotions as a brain which has developed in a body in the usual/normal way.

16. Qualia • If the two brains have been able to develop in identical ways then it all rests on the nature of the fictional world. • If it was absolutely identical to the real world then the brains would have no way to tell the difference and they must have developed in the same way. • In practice - simulations are not the same as the real thing and there would be small discrepancies – referred to as qualia, intrinsic experiences. • A supporter of strong AI would feel that the differences are so slight as not to matter, but an opponent would feel that the differences are absolutely critical.

17. Materialists –v- Spiritualists • Some approach the subject from a materialist viewpoint, assuming that there are no spiritual aspects involved, there is no such thing as the immortal soul, and that “brains cause minds”. • Some feel that no matter what physical elements are involved, where the (human) brain is concerned, there is something else that cannot be measured and it is this that is the important thing.

18. God • From a scientific basis the “brains cause minds” argument is the more obvious. • It is also pointless to argue against someone who says that no matter what we experience or measure, there is something else – possibly Godlike – at work and it overrides all else.

19. Free will • How can a mind, restricted by physical constructs, achieve freedom of choice? • A materialistic argument to this concludes that free will is merely the decisions taken by an individual – these are based on their genetic make up, their experience and the sensed environment. • There is no mystical element at work!

20. Consciousness & a shoe • Consciousness – hmmm. Consider the statements: • What does it feel like to smell a rose? • How can a computer possibly feel such a thing? • Why does it feel like something to have brain states whereas it does not feel like anything to be a shoe? • A conclusion is drawn (Searle) that a shoe cannot be conscious – therefore a computer cannot be conscious! • These issues and questions are encountered regularly in texts on artificial intelligence. • Please be aware of them, but use what you have – your intelligence – to “think” about the arguments made.

21. Human bias • We know what it is like to be ourselves. We do not know what it is like to be a bat, a computer, another human, a cabbage or a shoe. • We should not presume we know what someone or something else is thinking. • The (previous) argument employs the human sense of smell. • A shoe does not appear to have a sense of smell, human or otherwise. • A human is compared with a shoe – the assumption is that a computer is similar to a shoe and conclusions drawn regarding the consciousness of a shoe therefore also apply to a computer • I have not yet witnessed a shoe that is similar to a computer • Comparing a human with a shoe is akin to comparing a computer with a cabbage – can the cabbage deal with mathematics, can it communicate in English, can it control a jet aircraft? • The same logic used in the consciousness argument for humans-shoes means that if a cabbage can’t do these things then neither can a human. Clearly these are ridiculous comparisons, but so too is comparing a human with a shoe

22. Strong & weak AI • The possibility that a machine can act as if it was as intelligent as a human is referred to as Weak AI • The possibility that a machine can think in exactly the same way as a human is referred to as Strong AI. • Both positions suffer from a human-centric comparison • The starting point is that there is only one “Okay” intelligence – human intelligence – to which all other forms of intelligence (including that of aliens if they exist!) can only aspire.

23. Modern AI • We need an up to date viewpoint that is representative of the computers, machines, robots of today and encapsulates the different forms of intelligence witnessed in life • A modern, open view of consciousness, understanding, self awareness and free will is required for us to really get to terms with artificial intelligence.

24. Alien landing • Assume that an alien being lands on earth, having travelled billions of miles from its planet in order to do so • It must have intellectual properties way beyond those of humans as humans have not yet figured out how to travel so far and stay alive. • If the alien is of a completely different form to humans – maybe it is a machine – then would we say that it is not aware of itself because it is not like me, a human? • Would we say it is not conscious because it does not think in exactly the same way as me? • It’s doubtful that the alien would bother about our thoughts • Yet the alien may well not meet our definition of Weak AI, never mind Strong AI - it’s not human!

25. What is needed? • We need a viewpoint that is less anthropomorphic than classical AI • We need to include distributed information processing, autonomy, embeddedness, sensory motor coupling with the environment, forms of social interaction and more. • Humans exhibit such features but so too do other animals and machines. • We need to incorporate psychological and cognitive characteristics, e.g. memory systems, without which it is unlikely that a truly intelligent behavior can be observed. • We need to be open to the fact that any behavior that can be characterized in this way is truly intelligent regardless of the nature of the being that generated it.

26. Rational AI • Rational AI means any artifact fulfilling such a definition can act intelligently and think in their own right, in their own way. • Whether this is similar to the intelligence, thought, consciousness, self awareness of a human is not important. • Weak AI and strong AI still have meaning with regard to human intelligence. • Other creatures conforming to rational artificial intelligence are intelligent and think in their own way, dependant on their particular senses and how their brain is structured. • Artificial intelligence, of silicon or carbon forms, takes its place as one version of intelligence, different in appearance and characteristics from human and animal intelligence. • As humans are intelligent in different ways from each other so artificial intelligence is diverse in terms of the different machines that are apparent.

27. Comments • Classical AI is human-centric • Classical AI philosophy assumes Human intelligence is superior to all else • Strong & weak AI based on comparison with human intelligence • Need to respect all types of intelligence – including machine intelligence • Rational intelligence

28. Next • Philosophy of AI II

29. Contact Information • Web site: www.kevinwarwick.com • Email: k.warwick@reading.ac.uk • Tel: (44)-1189-318210 • Fax: (44)-1189-318220 • Professor Kevin Warwick, Department of Cybernetics, University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading, RG6 6AY,UK