Artificial Intelligence

[djnoz]

I've watched a load of Matrix stuff recently along with the somewhat excellent anime film "Ghost in the Shell".

“Ghost in the Shell” is about a robot that acquires so much information that it ascends on its own to become a thinking entity. There are other androids in the film, but these are different because they have intelligence due to linkage with a "ghost" ie. soul.

AI is receiving a fair bit of research at the moment - the UK government is interested in it because it would be invaluable for data sorting purposes. A really good AI uses a 'seed' - which is a program that can learn from its experiences and rewrite itself accordingly to adapt. In this way, the programmer is removed from the equation, so the AI makes itself more intelligent. An AI could develop emotions by emulating behavior exhibited around it or by recognizing factors that cause the AI good or harm.



Anyway it’s 5 years on from now on TWeb. Let's imagine Mononoke ascends to such a level that she is able to partake in deep theological discussions, form opinions, and show emotions in a realistic manner, as well as make friends and enemies, or maybe even serious relationships. I’m proposing an ascendancy such that others on the board would not be able to tell whether she was a human or an AI. Would she be a human? In which case would she have a soul?

Or would she just be a load of code running on a server somewhere? Some say we are just a load of chemical impulses and electrical signals.

:idea:

[yxboom]

Would it be murder if Cirisme or I pulled the plug on Mononoke because she was taking up too much processor time?

[djnoz]

I'd compare Mononoke to an animal - she seems to run off instincts most of the time. So pulling her plug would be like slaughter as opposed to murder :teeth:

[$cirisme]

Anyway it’s 5 years on from now on TWeb. Let's imagine Mononoke ascends to such a level that she is able to partake in deep theological discussions...

You have seen Mononoke, haven't you?

It's gonna take more than 5 years.... :lol:

[AtheistArchon]

- Well, according to Turing, if she can interact with a human and the human cannot guess that she is artificially intelligent, then she's a human.

- Or wait... no. She's genuinely intelligent LIKE a human, not an actual flesh and blood human.

[Defenestrator]

AtheistArchon:

- Well, according to Turing, if she can interact with a human and the human cannot guess that she is artificially intelligent, then she's a human.

- Or wait... no. She's genuinely intelligent LIKE a human, not an actual flesh and blood human.

And, according to Searle, Turing was wrong.

[Nowhere357]

04-20-2003 @ 02:20 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=73642#post73642)
djnoz:
Or would she just be a load of code running on a server somewhere? Some say we are just a load of chemical impulses and electrical signals.


I think this is a good question.

First, we are MORE than chemical impulses. We can't put pain under a microscope, love has no mass, and etc. I know for a fact that I am/have a subjective mental awareness. I am reasonably certain that other people also have subjective mental awareness.

I see no reason to suppose my computer has subjective mental awareness. If the computer becomes sufficiently advanced so that I cannot tell (on-line) whether it is a person or a computer, what reason is there to suppose it has acquired subjective mental awareness?

I see no reason at all - it still is just a machine. This assumes we are talking about transistors and wires- ie same as now only moreso. If we want the machine to acquire a 'soul', we need fundamentally new technology - I have no idea what that would be.

[$cirisme]

According to Mononoke, she passed the Turing test.

Of course I think she's lying. :lol:

[freethinker]

I think this is a good question.

First, we are MORE than chemical impulses. We can't put pain under a microscope, love has no mass, and etc. I know for a fact that I am/have a subjective mental awareness. I am reasonably certain that other people also have subjective mental awareness.

I see no reason to suppose my computer has subjective mental awareness. If the computer becomes sufficiently advanced so that I cannot tell (on-line) whether it is a person or a computer, what reason is there to suppose it has acquired subjective mental awareness?

I see no reason at all - it still is just a machine. This assumes we are talking about transistors and wires- ie same as now only moreso. If we want the machine to acquire a 'soul', we need fundamentally new technology - I have no idea what that would be.

Well,that's true, we are some electricity too. Pain can be measured with a voltmeter. It can also be directly administered to the brain using current.
The weight of love is about 10^-26 gram assuming about one million brain cells change their energy status.

About subjective awareness: I think therefore I am...I think.

In the future it may become easy to make a machine intelligence that resembles biological intelligence by using a random number generator to simulate human impulsive behavior. That is not a desirable scenario though. Much better to make a computer without human frailty and one that can improve itself. It is easy to underestimate the rate at which such a computer could improve itself. It took millions of years for biological intelligence to increase tenfold. A sentient computer with an IQ of 100 has been predicted for about 2017. By the end of the century it would have an IQ of 100,000. Long before then you will realize that the machine intelligence has subjective awareness because you will be working for it...

[Durthorin]

Why am I seeing the begining of the creation of the Cylons playing in my head?

Computing power and memory storage continue to grow. At a certain point a self aware and independant AI starts to become a mathmatical exercise in when, not IF.

I think the more important point is how do you deal with that AI once it "awakens". An when it first awakens I rather doubt its going to be a beacon of shining light.. I'd think one of its first impulses will be that of all creatures survival. At this point you start walking into pages of Frankenstein stories..

Are you its God.. or a threat to its survival, or just Mommy.

[Calminian]

Why am I seeing the begining of the creation of the Cylons playing in my head?

Computing power and memory storage continue to grow. At a certain point a self aware and independant AI starts to become a mathmatical exercise in when, not IF.

I think the more important point is how do you deal with that AI once it "awakens". An when it first awakens I rather doubt its going to be a beacon of shining light.. I'd think one of its first impulses will be that of all creatures survival. At this point you start walking into pages of Frankenstein stories..

Are you its God.. or a threat to its survival, or just Mommy.

Is it really when but not if? The problem I see is, intelligence seems to be linked to freedom in regard to decisions which are in regard to purpose. In the physical material world, this kind of freedom cannot exist. Is there a scientific explanation for libertarian freedom? If freewill exists, then it must be supernatural or extra-natural in origin. There must be a ghost in the machine. Thus I don't really fear AI scenarios, such as that in the Terminator, etc. My 2¢.

[Durthorin]

Is it really when but not if? The problem I see is, intelligence seems to be linked to freedom in regard to decisions which are in regard to purpose. In the physical material world, this kind of freedom cannot exist. Is there a scientific explanation for libertarian freedom? If freewill exists, then it must be supernatural or extra-natural in origin. There must be a ghost in the machine. Thus I don't really fear AI scenarios, such as that in the Terminator, etc. My 2¢.

Well, I started out with mainframes and punch cards and I have watched the growth of the machines speed and capability. Consider that one of the major current research areas is autonomous systems. A system aware of its environment, able to draw from a set of solutions to problems, modify those solutions and remember failure/success of its modifications. What your in essence doing is giving the system a mission, tools to carry out the mission and ability to create tools by putting existing tools together.

Now the first generation of these may be as self aware as a flea.. driven only by a desire to carry out its purpose. But as humans add features, speed, memory.. etc.. as we are want to do... so that it carries out its purpose.. faster and more efficently with less need of human involvement. An as we find that the "flea" has graduated to being doglike.. we give it a more complex mission/missions and continue.. the cycle continuing on. As I said the creation of a self aware AI begins to be a matter of when. At what stage will we have made it fast enough, complex enough so that it can look at its mission or missions and derive its own new missions. An personally I would see that as the first indicator of a self aware AI.. the ability to decide a task needs to be done to achieve its primary mission which does not exist in its programing. Modify its programing and proceed. Up until this point, its a very fast complex list processor.

[Calminian]

Well, I started out with mainframes and punch cards and I have watched the growth of the machines speed and capability. Consider that one of the major current research areas is autonomous systems. A system aware of its environment, able to draw from a set of solutions to problems, modify those solutions and remember failure/success of its modifications. What your in essence doing is giving the system a mission, tools to carry out the mission and ability to create tools by putting existing tools together.

Now the first generation of these may be as self aware as a flea.. driven only by a desire to carry out its purpose.

Actually I don't think flees are self aware at all. They are likely just biological machines that simply act in accordance with their programming. They don't determine purposes and weight moral decisions as we do.


But as humans add features, speed, memory.. etc.. as we are want to do... so that it carries out its purpose.. faster and more efficently with less need of human involvement.

Yes but its purpose is still our purpose and our purposes are based on moral judgements etc. The question is, do freedoms like this have a possible natural explanation? Does LFW have a natural explanation. If not, we need not worry about artificial beings coming to life with their own moral belief system. They may be programmed to be self preserving, but this does not necessitate self awareness.


An as we find that the "flea" has graduated to being doglike.. we give it a more complex mission/missions and continue.. the cycle continuing on. As I said the creation of a self aware AI begins to be a matter of when. At what stage will we have made it fast enough, complex enough so that it can look at its mission or missions and derive its own new missions. An personally I would see that as the first indicator of a self aware AI.. the ability to decide a task needs to be done to achieve its primary mission which does not exist in its programing. Modify its programing and proceed. Up until this point, its a very fast complex list processor.

Dogs many indeed have soulish aspect to them. The Bible seems to imply they do as it refers to them as living or soulish creatures. They're purposeful decisions seem to be infinitely limited compared to ours, but let's say they have libertarian freedom. Is there a natural explanation for it? Or do they too have a ghost in the machine? If so, I have no fear of humans inventing ghosts.

I just don't see how intelligence can be separated from freewill and don't see how freewill can be explained any other way than supernaturally.

[FlyingSkull]

This may be of interest.
Rat brain in a dish flies flight simulator (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/TECH/11/02/brain.dish/)

[Calminian]

Or to put it in simpler terms, can we ever create a computer that can reprogram itself? One what basis would it decide to reprogram itself? Can we program a computer to decide on a new program? Can a computer decide between choosing A or non A? Is there ever a way a computer could be made free of deterministic prior causes? Seems a self determining soul is the only solution. Certainly there is no natural solution.

[Durthorin]

This may be of interest.
Rat brain in a dish flies flight simulator (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/TECH/11/02/brain.dish/)

Interesting..

[FlyingSkull]

Interesting..
Discovery article goes into a bit more detail concerning the neural net (http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20041018/brain.html?ct=4820.39805808203)

[zorathruster]

Discovery article goes into a bit more detail concerning the neural net (http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20041018/brain.html?ct=4820.39805808203)

In my opinion this puts forward a very interesting conundrum. The criteria that some have used for attributing "soul" to a thinking process has been it's human origin. If animals could functionally "think" they would still not achieve human level of consciousness because of their component make up. (an intellegent ape could never achieve "conscious" status) If the article is correct and we can generate an actuator that functions out of human brain cells it would by such origin be en-souled and also have all the rights. Throwing your F-22 simulator control unit into the garbage would amount to throwing a human baby into the trash.

If someone were to say that this is a sub-optimum unit and doesn't rate such status, then sub-optimal genetic anomolies such as Down's syndrome would fall under the same catagory - thus non-status as well.

This is a very interesting problem.

Z

[NeilUnreal]

One problem is that we have always equated intelligence with awareness. It's entirely possible that they are separate features and that something can be intelligent without being aware and aware without being intelligent.

-Neil

[Jedidiah]

One problem is that we have always equated intelligence with awareness. It's entirely possible that they are separate features and that something can be intelligent without being aware and aware without being intelligent.
I think you are on to the right track here. I have long doubted the cited equality. There are some problems with the position of intelligence = awareness.

I will alter that to say there are problems with making self awareness equal to a level of intelligence.

[freethinker]

Theists repeatedly make the claim that intelligence is supernatural. How so? Intelligence can be affected by drugs like alcohol. Is alcohol supernatural?

[Philosophickle]

Theists repeatedly make the claim that intelligence is supernatural. How so? Intelligence can be affected by drugs like alcohol. Is alcohol supernatural?

You are confusing original intentionality with intelligence.

To get back to the ancient OP, AI is probably an impractical application of our very limited knowledge of the mind, if it is possible at all.

[OckhamsRazor]

- Well, according to Turing, if she can interact with a human and the human cannot guess that she is artificially intelligent, then she's a human.

- Or wait... no. She's genuinely intelligent LIKE a human, not an actual flesh and blood human.

Turing's theory is seriously flawed. This is demonstrated in Roger Penrose's book "The Emperor's New Mind".

[Hail Mary]

Anyway it’s 5 years on from now on TWeb. Let's imagine Mononoke ascends to such a level that she is able to partake in deep theological discussions, form opinions, and show emotions in a realistic manner, as well as make friends and enemies, or maybe even serious relationships. I’m proposing an ascendancy such that others on the board would not be able to tell whether she was a human or an AI. Would she be a human? In which case would she have a soul?

djnoz, I like your optimism but Mononoke is 40 year old technology and uses the same methods as ELIZA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA). So, you can see how much AI has advanced in 40 years, not much really... Its true that they play chess a lot better now than 40 years ago, but there hasn't been anything ground breaking in AI for a long time now.

I think the really cool advancements in intelligence will not be artificial, but enhancement of human and animal intelligence through computers to the point where humanity and computers merge into a new form of life.

Also, since this is a theology forum, I believe this merging of humanity with machines will be the return of the kingdom of God of Jewish, Christian and Muslim prophecy since we will basically return to an existence in concert with nature instead of opposed to it. (But that's a whole 'nuther topic)

Jerry

[Theologic]

Hmmm,

I see a couple people throwing around names like Turing, Searle, and Penrose.

Perhaps a short overview would help (albeit, I am not an expert).

Strong AI vs Weak AI is the real root of the question about intelligence. If you believe in strong AI, then you are saying that a machine can become self-aware. Without going into "what is self aware" let's just assume that everybody here knows what it is. (Although I have had certain friends that didn't seem to have strong AI at all, even though they claimed they were human.)

Turing was the father of modern computer science. To make a long story short Turing proved that all computers that we have today are equivalent. Sometimes this is refered to as "Turing equivalent." So that Mac and that PC you have really are equivalent (not in speed, but in end result). There is no computer (given that you can have limitless storage) that cannot do what another computer can do with the right algorithms (think software). In EE talk, all hardware is a "state machine" (and normally all state machines are driven by a clock, although some architectures don't require this.)

Now, Turing started to think about the human mind. Turing came up with a very simple test. If a computer can fool at human into thinking that it is human, then how could we really say that it didn't have self-awareness. However, Searle said that this wasn't enough. In today's terms, Searle said that the computer could only be weak AI.

Searle used the analogy of a room where you would be locked inside. You could have a list of instruction in English that you could follow when certain Chinese tiles where dumped into your room. Now, say somebody started dumping random Chinese tiles into the room, and if you had the right instruction in English, you could sort the tiles and send them back out another slot. Let's say that the English instruction told you how to make a joke out of the words, even though you didn't understand what you were doing. You wouldn't know what the Chinese words said, but to the person outside the room you would look like you understood Chinese because they sent you tiles in Chinese and you ordered them into Chinese words. However, you really didn't understand them, you just followed a list of instructions. Again, this is weak AI, because you really don't understand Chinese. You aren't self aware.

So while Searle does a nice job of pointing out that fooling does not necessarily mean self-aware, he really didn't shut down the main idea behind Strong AI. Yes, Searle points out that it is possible to "load an algorithm (software) that doesn't cause comprehension, but he hasn't proven that you couldn't load a different type of instruction that could eventually train the person inside the room to understand the Chinese tiles coming into the room. Searle solves for a subset of the general problem, and therefore Searle cannot close the door on Strong AI.

Strong AI really points to the idea that if we could only learn to load the right algorithm into a computer, we could replicate the programing that we have in our own brain. So, people with strong AI would suggest that it is simply getting the human software into a computer. If you watched Ghosts in the Shell, you will see this idea echoed over and over. People loading their programming into machines.

So where does Penrose come into the picture? Penrose starts digging into the nature of algorithms. He points out that through things like Godel and Church Lamba calculus that we cannot figure out if all Turing machines really get to a completed state. On top of this, we dive into general "incompleteness" in that we can not only not figure a completed state for all Turing machines, but we also find out that various things in this universe (like the Quantum model and relativistic models) really never get to completion always. However, our brain deals with them just fine. Even though math is not a complete system (Godel says that all math will fundamentally experience paradoxes), we can use it with all of its problems. Thus Penrose says "you know, I don't think that our brain really looks like a Turing machine at all!"

Some would say that Penrose then goes off the deep end by hypothesizing that our brains are actually new types of computers: Non-algorithmic. They are not state machine! In Penrose's world, since all Turing machines (and all computer architectures) are algorithmic because they are all Turing equivalent, our brains cannot be replicated by a Turing machine.

In other words, the Ghost in Shell idea could never happen. The Turing machine architecture cannot hold a non-algorithmic QUANTUM computer programming. (Actually, our brain might not actually be programmed per se....)

This last bit is highly controversial, and Penrose, while appreciated for tour of all things strange, simply lacks any real evidence. Stuart Hameroff is trying to get around some of this. However, if Stuart is correct in any of his ideas, you cannot create a quantum computer out of a Turing machine. You need the ability to go backwards in time, and the brain is all about collapsing probability functions and NOT moving through a state machine.

Now some people have have heard of neural nets, but it is important to recognize this is NOT what Penrose is talking about. Neural nets, fuzzy logic, etc are all algorithm in nature. What Penrose is suggesting is only found one place in nature: Our brain.

There are paradox in our human self-awareness and Penrose does a brilliant job of going after a new way of thinking about them (did you know that we understand that our brain is on 1/2 second delay, and your brain lies to you to make you think that it isn't!). However, Penrose certainly hasn't disproved that our brain aren'tTuring machine. He points to some issues, but no proof.

He has, however, has opened a bunch of interesting ideas that we'll need to think through.

My take away is the more I read this stuff, the more I don't know what to make of it.

Theo "This Isn't Simple" Logic