Philosophy 101E

Robots Inherit Human Minds

by Hans Moravac, who also appeared in the movie Love Machine screened last week.

Our first tools, sticks and stones, were very different from ourselves. But many tools now resemble us, in function or form, and they are beginning to have minds. A loose parallel with our own evolution suggests how they may develop in future. Computerless industrial machinery exhibits the behavioral flexibility of single-celled organisms. Today’s best computer-controlled robots are like the simpler invertebrates. A thousand-fold increase in computer power in this decade should make possible machines with reptile-like sensory and motor competence. Growing computer power over the next half century will allow robots that learn like mammals, model their world like primates and eventually reason like humans. Depending on your point of view, humanity will then have produced a worthy successor, or transcended inherited limitations and transformed itself into something quite new. No longer limited by the slow pace of human learning and even slower biological evolution, intelligent machinery will conduct its affairs on an ever faster, ever smaller scale, until coarse physical nature has been converted to fine-grained purposeful thought.

We discussed in class about how Dreyfus thought that technology could possibly cause us to lead lives without meaning. Daniel summed up Dreyfus’s views by saying something along the lines of whatever hugs do for people, e-hugs will never be able to. I think Dreyfus meant for this statement to be hypothetical, but with advances in technology, the actual idea of an e-hug is becoming more and more plausible.

The appropriately named company CuteCircuit has several projects in the works that attempt to make technology more user friendly. Most of their projects incorporate some type of computing device into clothing. In this sense, we are coming that much closer to being one with technology, as Clark thinks. The most interesting and pertinent piece that they are working on now is the Hug Shirt. This is their description:

“The Hug Shirt is a shirt that makes people send hugs over distance! Embedded in the shirt there are sensors that feel the strength of the touch, the skin warmth and the heartbeat rate of the sender and actuators that recreate the sensation of touch, warmth and emotion of the hug to the shirt of the distant loved one.”

You can send and receive hugs through normal cell phones. The shirt “encodes” the hug before sending it out to whomever you choose. While this won’t be exactly like a real hug, it’s the next best thing to receiving a real one when you’re restrained distance. It’s a warm gesture that expresses how one feels. Besides, it’s the thought behind the action that really counts.

In addition, Cisco System has developed a conference system called TelePresence. It promises to bring people together even across great distances. The video pretty much explains everything.

With these new technologies emerging, we can now find out what their true potentials really are instead open ended debates with no resolution. Even though these existing technologies may not be able to prove Dreyfus wrong, we will be able to learn from these devices’ shortcomings and continually improve upon them. Maybe someday, e-hugs will be able to do whatever real hugs can.

See that image above? That’s right, it’s two robotic Bjorks making out with each other. Sure, it’s sensual…kind of, but there’s definitely something unnatural about it. The act of kissing and fondling is usually an act performed by two humans. So why does it look so silly when robots do it?

Sex is usually accompanied by at least two of the three following emotions: lust, love, and desire. These are very human characteristics that would be difficult for a machine to learn, even with a neural network. Seeing this type of relationship between two machines is difficult for us because emotion is the one thing that we all thought would separate humans from robots.

An androids, a robot with a humanoid form, is an attempt to make a machine with as many human qualities with possible. The video portrayed an attempt to make an android with qualities that separate man and machine. The emotions in the two androids were heavily contrasted by the use of machines that were far less complex than they were. These assembly line robots worked efficiently and precisely, as fine tuned instruments should. But they gave off a cold, sterile, and uncaring feel as they meticulously worked to finish up the android.

This definitely redefined the what the words “robot” and “machine” mean to me. A machine is no more than a a tool, something to be used by someone. A robot, however, has a certain degree of independence and can work on it’s own. The music video portrayed a distant future, one where robots are capable of some level of compassion. The video shows the two androids going through the motions of compassion and erotic love, but I do not think that androids, no matter how realistic, will ever feel exactly what we as humans feel.

I began to flip through the pages of On the Internet today, and I discovered some really interesting ideas. First and foremost, like Daniel mentioned before, we can tell that this book is pretty outdated. The author, Dreyfus, predicts that the internet will bring “a new era of economic prosperity, lead to the development of intelligent search engines that will deliver to us just the information we desire, solve the problems of mass education, put us in touch with all of reality, allow us to have even more flexible identities than we already have and thereby add new dimensions of meaning to our lives.” We know that all of these predictions have already been made true. The second point I noticed was just that, his predictions have already come true. For a perspective published in 2001 to predict the next generation of search engines, a generation which will “allow us to have even more flexible identities than we already have and thereby add new dimensions of meaning to our lives.” This was a bold prediction for its time that we know to be a reality today with companies such as Google that were only in their infancy in 2001. A company like Google does give us a flexible identity with the ability to retrieve email from anywhere on the globe, research topics with the click of a button, and post dynamic content for the world to see. In the words of Hubert Dreyfus it really does bring “new meaning to our lives”. Another thing to think about is that Dreyfus presents a major question in the introduction, which seems to be the premise behind his book: is it possible to transcend the limits imposed on us by our body, as the internet promises, and still hold onto our relevance, skill, reality, and meaning?

Artificial intelligence is something that stirs up people’s blood because it is thinking about what might happen. There is a long history of literature and film about this topic, and we are finally approaching the final time. It is only a matter of time until we hit that technological breakthrough that will finally answer all the questions about robots and intelligence. People like to think they are special and superior to everything else in the world with having no real threats in the modern animal kingdom. Our “edge” is the capacity to reason and reflect, something that has been unprecedented in history. When there is uncertainty, people will try to rationalize. Some people will be right, some people will be wrong. There was a point when technology was new. The internet 20 years ago was nothing like we see it today. The computer of 40 years ago is literally hundreds of thousands of times bigger than the modern computer. If I was to go back in time when computers were the size of buildings, and show them a laptop, they would probably flip out. People often think too small and underestimate the capabilities of technology. We are growing more and more dependant on technology, and I believe in the power of robots. I believe that humans have the power to create great turning machines. I believe that we can explain a formal system to a machine. As hard drives get bigger, we will be able to store ridiculous amounts of information in small spaces. It will get to be to the point where there will be virtually unlimited saving space. Perhaps we will one day be able to save every single possible game of chess onto a big hard drive, and the machine will indefinitely know every outcome. Humans are unique in that the sky is the limit. As we go on from generation to generation, people use the information from the past and they build on it. Many philosophers are too stuck on the idea that humans are special just because they can feel. I’m sure 20 years from now, my suspicions will be confirmed.

So when Daniel was talking about Deep Blue, he said that it was programmed just to play chess and that people who were smarter then it created it. My first thought was the idea of God. Did God not just program us? He is, after all, our creator. If our thoughts are “electrical” synapses, how can we be that different from a machine? Maybe one day they will be able to create “caring” machines. People only 30 yrs ago could not imagine the technology we have so far. Like Frank said in class, one day they will be doing things we can’t imagine about at all. But just because we can’t imagine it, mainly because of our lack in understanding the science and math behind new ideas, doesn’t mean there isn’t some inventor out there thinking about how to figure out a way to incorporate feelings into machines. From what we learned about earlier, there is no such thing as an imagination, just learning knowledge that has always been there. When you think about it that way, aren’t these scientists just trying to create a human from metal? I think that one day, it could be a possibility. Especially with all of the scientific advances on watching how a brain reacts to electrical impulses, what it looks like when it is thinking of different things, and what happens when certain parts are missing. That is where psychology, philosophy, and physiology come together. I think when Daniel was talking in class, he said that you can’t open a brain and see a verbal ‘box’. But when scientists take a look at the electrical impulses while someone talks or listens, they see patterns and certain areas that consistently light up. They have studied the physical means of the brain and have figured out where different things are processed, sent to where, interpreted to what, and sent to somewhere else. They have learned a lot and they can only learn more. If it is out there, it should be able to be recognized one day.

Just like in the movie Pi, everything is a pattern. I know they didn’t talk about the findings of symbol/number Pi, but that was some pattern that was not obvious until it was studied to a point that it was right in front of their faces. Once that number was recognized, then it was obvious that it could be used for a lot of concepts pertaining to a circle. I was thinking about the time in the movie with the guy was talking about how the board game had infinite choices (like the example of chess in class). Yes, in the beginning, there are infinite choices. But the further they got into the game the more logistic the choices became. It is a lot like guessing how to do something and not succeeding. You try different ways until you stumble upon a right one. This reminds me of Einstein trying to figure out the light bulb. Then, once you can figure out one part, your next level is narrowed down on what you need to figure out the second time. Until you can spend so much time, like lifetimes or millennia, until all the works piles up onto the one correct answer. This is like in movie Waking Life. When the guy was talking about it took a shorter and shorter time for “God” to make things. The eras get shorter and shorter as they approach human existence, which to us has been a long time, but really hasn’t been that long at all compare to how old the Universe is. But who knows, maybe that has a pattern in its self that will one day be a predictable end.

The movie Pi was thought-provoking, to say the least. I have seen Requiem for a Dream, directed by Darren Aronofsky as well, and I recognize a lot of the same directing styles (i.e. camera angles, hip-hop montage for drug sequence, use of Snorricam, and a use of string instruments and techno for the soundtrack). While the movie itself confused me, I can say for certain that I have a pretty good idea of why we watched it and how it is connected to our class.

Max, the main character, is obsessed with math to the point where it has become his entire life. He is almost completely withdrawn from society and has little social contact with anyone. Everything he does is motivated only by his seemingly never ending search for a mathematical pattern that governs the forces of our stock market. We have discussed in class how many philosophers believe that math is an absolute truth that cannot be denied. While it is true that we can see math in a lot of nature in this world, Max believes that it can dictate everything in our lives. In addition to mathematics, this movie is also a good way of transitioning into technology and the philosophy behind it, which is where we’re heading.

However, I’m not sure I really understood the point of the movie. Requiem for a Dream had a message: don’t do drugs, or it’ll really mess you up big time. But with this movie, there wasn’t a very clear message at all. All I saw was “don’t do math, or else it’ll really mess you up big time.” And I think we can all agree that everyone can do with a little less math.

“The basic idea of cognitive science is that intelligent beings are semantic engines – in other words, automatic formal systems with interpretations under which they consistently make sense.” The thought that people are semantic engines is kind of deep, and some people will agree with it and others will disagree with it. According to the reading, any semantic engine can be imitated by a computer if the right program is used to achieve the imitation. In order to achieve this, artificial intelligence is needed to imitate people and that allows for any type of imitation imaginable because ethics won’t get in the way of a project with artificial intelligence.

Although I am not completely clear with the idea that intelligent beings are automatic formal systems, I believe I disagree with what I understand about it. According to this thought, we need to alter tokens that follow the rules of a formal system. I don’t understand how humans can be related to a formal system. Someone can probably come up with aspects to describe as a person’s token and a starting position, but I don’t see any explanation in transition rules for a person’s life. There are no rules in life, and a person can choose to do or not do whatever they please. Although their decisions may not be looked upon as ethical, just, or morally right, all people have the option to do as they please.

In order to imitate a person, artificial intelligence is needed. I believe that artificial intelligence will only imitate people to a certain point. This is due to two reasons: humans will eventually reach a point in technology when it can go no further due to limited resources, and original intentionality will come into effect. Although people have endless ideas in their minds, there is no way all those ideas, especially with technology, can be produced due to limited resources in the world. Certain things are not cost effective and will never end up being produced. Also, original intentionality states that a computer does what it does because it was designed that way; the doings of that computer, or artificial intelligence in this case, was derived from the designer’s intentionality and not by the artificial intelligence itself. This means that the artificial intelligence would not be imitating a person under its own power; it would only take action and imitate a person due to the fact that it was programmed by a designer to do that.

The Turing article raised several good questions about computers and their ability to think, either now or in the future.  Turing goes through a multitude of problems, mostly stemming from the definitions of machines and thinking.  Using an example involving interrogation of a machine by a real person, he presents a test that basically tests to see if a machine can imitate a human to point that another human would not be able to tell the difference.

First of all, I think this is an unfair definition of “thinking.”  I understand that imitating a thinking body, like a human, would require thinking on the part of the impersonator.  I don’t, however, feel that said impersonation is required for thought.  He uses a definition later in the article that seems to paint a much fairer picture of thinking.  He associates the thinking body to a mass of radioactive material to be used in an atomic bomb.  With a sub-critical mass, inserting a neutron into the mass will result in a single reaction.  If that mass is increased to a super-critical mass, then a chain reaction occurs, fully exhausting the mass.  Think of a computer today as being a sub-critical mass.  You send in one command (neutron), and it sends out a single response (or set of responses).  Now imagine a computer that had the capacity to take in a single stimulus but put out not just a primary response, but secondary, tertiary, and quaternary levels of response.  Basically, it would take in a piece of information, and have the ability to relate that to multiple levels of relevance and intellectual background.  This analogy seems much more adequate.

Another way to describe thought is one described in most Sci-Fi movies when the subject of artificial intelligence comes up.  Movies such as Terminator, The Matrix, and I Robot all involve computer intelligence in some form.  The computers in these films were always said to become thinking machines when they acquired enough computing power to comprehend their own existence.  They become self-aware.  I never really thought about it in terms of philosophy, but this definition reminds me of Descartes original certainty.  The computers think about their own existence, therefore they must exist.  It’s an interesting consequence of that mode of thinking.

I thought that this article and the discussions in class have been extremely interesting. I agree with the whole idea that humans are like machines. When we were talking about the computer that is programmed to play chess, it made me think of how similar that is to humans. We all may act differently in situations, but we all have the same main choices to choose from. We, like the computer, are programmed so that before each move we make, we look through all of our options and choose which one has the best chance of getting whatever we’re looking for. Like the professional chess player who was shocked when the computer played a “human” move during the game, we as humans are shocked when other people make decisions that we can’t imagine doing, such as brutal cases of murder or rape. We perceive these actions as “non-human” and can’t believe that the person was capable of doing this. However, we, like the chess player, just choose not to see that one branch in our array of options, but we all have it in us. Although we all vary in our different behaviors and actions, the general ideas and paths are there for most situations in each human being. We have been programmed, like the computer, to choose the options with the best chance for success, but every once in awhile there is a error or a slip-up and we choose the path that seems impossible or incomprehendable. If we really searched deep and thought about all the options we could take in a certain situation, we would see that those same “non-human” paths lie in ourselves as well, though the majority of people chose to block them and don’t even consider them in their everyday activities and normal situations. This discussion showed a part of us as human beings that we may not want to look at or realize, but the truth is that is there and we are all capable of making one of those “non-human” choices and shocking everyone.

OK, so we have done plenty of interesting readings in this class, that have brought up many interesting questions and perspectives on life, existence, and thought. So far I’ve found most of the works intriguing and interesting insights that have added to and slightly challenged my current beliefs. However, the ideas proposed in the ‘Semantic Engines’ article are by far the most extreme and have got my head spinning.

Even though I’m not completely through the article, I’ve got the basic idea of the work and it’s pretty intense. On page one of the article, Haugeland states, “the guiding inspiration of cognitive science is that, at a suitable level of abstraction, a theory of ‘natural’ intelligence should have the same basic form as the theories that explain sophisticated computer systems.” Basically what I get out of all this is that our basic intelligence and thought processes work in pretty much the same way computer systems work, in a programmable system. This theory really disturbs me.

I personally have my own reasons for being disturbed by this, including my belief in free will, freedom of choice, and the soul. Saying we’re like computers doesn’t really work with these. But in terms of work we’ve read, I find some disturbing contradictions. For one, Plato used to teach we have a capacity for reason that separates us from other animals, and that we find truth through thinking about it and rationalizing with others. I don’t see how we can find truth in Plato’s forms if we think like a programmable machine. This idea gets even more disturbing when you consider Descartes, who brought us the ‘Cogito ergo sum’ : “I think, therefore I am.” If we don’t actually have free thoughts, thoughts that don’t work according to the rules, positions, and guidelines of a computer program, what are we? And what does this say for free will or creativity/uniqueness?

Basically my head is spinning from this whole Semantic Engines article and these are the questions that are surfacing. If anyone has more insights into cognitive science and how it relates to these ideas of existence, thought, creativity, and free will, I would be glad to hear them. I’m not quite into cognitive science, but I’d like to hear more insights about it.