A New Artificial Intelligence 5 Kevin Warwick

Philosophy of AI II Here we will look afresh at some of the arguments Here we will look afresh at some of the arguments Brain prosthesis experiment Brain prosthesis experiment Chinese room problem Chinese room problem Technological Singularity Technological Singularity

Brain Prosthesis Experiment Assume - we fully understand the working of human brain cells and can make devices which perform exactly the same function. Assume - we fully understand the working of human brain cells and can make devices which perform exactly the same function. Surgical techniques have developed so that we can replace individual neurons with their microscopic equivalents without interrupting the workings of the brain Surgical techniques have developed so that we can replace individual neurons with their microscopic equivalents without interrupting the workings of the brain Cell by cell the whole brain is replaced. It is then restored, by a reversal, to its original Cell by cell the whole brain is replaced. It is then restored, by a reversal, to its original

Question Would the person’s consciousness remain the same throughout the process? Would the person’s consciousness remain the same throughout the process? If the individual smells a flower when in both versions, either: If the individual smells a flower when in both versions, either: (a) consciousness that generates the resultant feelings still operates in the technological version, which is conscious in the same way, or (a) consciousness that generates the resultant feelings still operates in the technological version, which is conscious in the same way, or (b) conscious mental events in the normal brain have no connection to behavior and are missing in the technological brain, which is not conscious. (b) conscious mental events in the normal brain have no connection to behavior and are missing in the technological brain, which is not conscious. Presumably after reversal the individual will be conscious although they may suffer memory loss Presumably after reversal the individual will be conscious although they may suffer memory loss

Oofle Dust and Modelling Version (b) is called epiphenomenal, something occurs but has no effect in the real world. Oofle dust – not science! Version (b) is called epiphenomenal, something occurs but has no effect in the real world. Oofle dust – not science! Version (a) does require that replacement neurons, and their connections, are identical to the original. If we can, using present day physics, accurately form a model of the human brain then we should be able to carry out the experiment. Version (a) does require that replacement neurons, and their connections, are identical to the original. If we can, using present day physics, accurately form a model of the human brain then we should be able to carry out the experiment. One argument says that although we might be able to copy the neurons extremely closely, we will never be able to copy them ‘exactly’. Subtle differences due to chaotic behavior or quantum randomness would still exist and these differences are critical. One argument says that although we might be able to copy the neurons extremely closely, we will never be able to copy them ‘exactly’. Subtle differences due to chaotic behavior or quantum randomness would still exist and these differences are critical.

Penrose/Warwick Penrose - it is our present day understanding of physics that is to blame. For the very small elements that cannot be copied “such non- computational action would have to be found in an area of physics that lies outside the presently known physical laws”. If we could discover these laws then version (a) would be quite possible. Penrose - it is our present day understanding of physics that is to blame. For the very small elements that cannot be copied “such non- computational action would have to be found in an area of physics that lies outside the presently known physical laws”. If we could discover these laws then version (a) would be quite possible. Warwick - In this argument we are not concerned whether or not the technological brain is conscious but whether or not it is conscious in the same way as the original human brain. In the discussion of rational AI, the possibility of artificial intelligence to be conscious, in its own way, is not in question. What is in question is whether this could be identical to human consciousness. Warwick - In this argument we are not concerned whether or not the technological brain is conscious but whether or not it is conscious in the same way as the original human brain. In the discussion of rational AI, the possibility of artificial intelligence to be conscious, in its own way, is not in question. What is in question is whether this could be identical to human consciousness.

Reality Check No matter how good the model, there will be differences between the human and technological brain. But the model could be very close, which means that the form of consciousness exhibited by the technological brain could be so close to that of the human brain, as makes no difference. No matter how good the model, there will be differences between the human and technological brain. But the model could be very close, which means that the form of consciousness exhibited by the technological brain could be so close to that of the human brain, as makes no difference. This is a philosophical exercise. The human brain is a complex organ, full of highly connected neurons. If one neuron is actually removed then the overall effect may be negligible but may be dramatic, with the individual’s behavior changing completely. This is a philosophical exercise. The human brain is a complex organ, full of highly connected neurons. If one neuron is actually removed then the overall effect may be negligible but may be dramatic, with the individual’s behavior changing completely.

The Chinese Room The Chinese Room argument is a neat argument originated by John Searle in an attempt to show that a symbol processing machine (a computer) can never be properly described as having a “mind" or “understanding“ or being “conscious”, no matter how intelligently it may behave. The Chinese Room argument is a neat argument originated by John Searle in an attempt to show that a symbol processing machine (a computer) can never be properly described as having a “mind" or “understanding“ or being “conscious”, no matter how intelligently it may behave.

The Argument I A computer takes Chinese characters as input and follows the instructions of a program to produce other Chinese characters, which it presents as output. A computer takes Chinese characters as input and follows the instructions of a program to produce other Chinese characters, which it presents as output. The computer does this so convincingly that it comfortably passes the Turing Test: it convinces a human Chinese speaker that it is itself a human Chinese speaker. The computer does this so convincingly that it comfortably passes the Turing Test: it convinces a human Chinese speaker that it is itself a human Chinese speaker. It could be argued that the computer "understands" Chinese – Strong AI It could be argued that the computer "understands" Chinese – Strong AI Without "understanding" we cannot describe what the machine is doing as "thinking". Because it does not think, it does not have a "mind" in anything like the normal sense of the word. Therefore "strong AI" is mistaken (Searle). Without "understanding" we cannot describe what the machine is doing as "thinking". Because it does not think, it does not have a "mind" in anything like the normal sense of the word. Therefore "strong AI" is mistaken (Searle).

The Argument II Suppose that you are in a closed room and that you have a book with an English/Czech version of the same program. You can receive Chinese characters, process them according to the instructions, and produce Chinese characters as output. As the computer had passed the Turing test this way, it is fair to deduce that you will be able to do so as well Suppose that you are in a closed room and that you have a book with an English/Czech version of the same program. You can receive Chinese characters, process them according to the instructions, and produce Chinese characters as output. As the computer had passed the Turing test this way, it is fair to deduce that you will be able to do so as well There is no difference between the computer’s role in the first case and the role you play in the latter. Each is simply following a program which simulates intelligent behavior. Yet you do not understand a word of Chinese. Since you do not understand Chinese we can infer that the computer does not understand Chinese either. There is no difference between the computer’s role in the first case and the role you play in the latter. Each is simply following a program which simulates intelligent behavior. Yet you do not understand a word of Chinese. Since you do not understand Chinese we can infer that the computer does not understand Chinese either.

The Argument III Searle’s argument is that you have something more than the machine Searle’s argument is that you have something more than the machine You could ‘learn’ Chinese – but the machine?? You could ‘learn’ Chinese – but the machine?? You can ‘understand’ a language – the machine cannot - you have something extra, that the computer does not have! (consciousness) You can ‘understand’ a language – the machine cannot - you have something extra, that the computer does not have! (consciousness) Humans have beliefs, while thermostats and adding machines and shoes don't Humans have beliefs, while thermostats and adding machines and shoes don't

Comments on the Chinese Room Obviously human-centric Obviously human-centric Much philosophical discussion Much philosophical discussion But what exactly is the conclusion? But what exactly is the conclusion? Searle -There are “properties" in human neurons that give rise to the mind. These properties cannot be detected by anyone outside the mind, otherwise the computer couldn't pass the Turing Test. Searle -There are “properties" in human neurons that give rise to the mind. These properties cannot be detected by anyone outside the mind, otherwise the computer couldn't pass the Turing Test. This implies the human mind is epiphenomenal – oofle dust This implies the human mind is epiphenomenal – oofle dust

Points Can do exactly the same argument (Machine comms etc) to prove that machines are conscious but humans are not Can do exactly the same argument (Machine comms etc) to prove that machines are conscious but humans are not Human/shoe – machine/cabbage Human/shoe – machine/cabbage Learning/programmed? Learning/programmed? Much philosophical argument though! Much philosophical argument though!

Technological Singularity Vinge (1993) “Within 30 years we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence” Vinge (1993) “Within 30 years we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence” Warwick (1998) “There is no proof, no evidence, no physical or biological pointers that indicate that machine intelligence cannot surpass that of humans”. Warwick (1998) “There is no proof, no evidence, no physical or biological pointers that indicate that machine intelligence cannot surpass that of humans”. Moravec (2000) Robots will match human intelligence in 50 years then exceed it – they will become our “Mind Children”. Moravec (2000) Robots will match human intelligence in 50 years then exceed it – they will become our “Mind Children”.

Ray Kurzweil “a strong trend toward the merger of human thinking with the world of machine intelligence”. “a strong trend toward the merger of human thinking with the world of machine intelligence”. “There will no longer be any clear distinction between humans and computers” “There will no longer be any clear distinction between humans and computers” Singularity – point where humans lose control Singularity – point where humans lose control

Steven Hawking “In contrast with our intellect, computers double their performance every 18 months.” “In contrast with our intellect, computers double their performance every 18 months.” “The danger is real that they could develop intelligence and take over the world.” “The danger is real that they could develop intelligence and take over the world.” “We must develop as quickly as possible technologies that make a direct connection between brain and computer.” “We must develop as quickly as possible technologies that make a direct connection between brain and computer.”

Cyborgs What is the intelligence, consciousness, ability of a combined human/machine brain? What is the intelligence, consciousness, ability of a combined human/machine brain?

Next Turing Update – can machines communicate like a human? Turing Update – can machines communicate like a human?

Contact Information Web site: Web site: Tel: (44) Tel: (44) Fax: (44) Fax: (44) Professor Kevin Warwick, Department of Cybernetics, University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading, RG6 6AY,UK Professor Kevin Warwick, Department of Cybernetics, University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading, RG6 6AY,UK