A New Artificial A New Artificial Intelligence 5Intelligence 5

Kevin WarwickKevin Warwick

Philosophy of AI IIPhilosophy of AI II

• Here we will look afresh at some of Here we will look afresh at some of the argumentsthe arguments

• Brain prosthesis experimentBrain prosthesis experiment

• Chinese room problemChinese room problem

• Technological SingularityTechnological Singularity

Brain Prosthesis ExperimentBrain Prosthesis Experiment

• Assume - we fully understand the working Assume - we fully understand the working of human brain cells and can make devices of human brain cells and can make devices which perform exactly the same function.which perform exactly the same function.

• Surgical techniques have developed so Surgical techniques have developed so that we can replace individual neurons with that we can replace individual neurons with their microscopic equivalents without their microscopic equivalents without interrupting the workings of the brain interrupting the workings of the brain

• Cell by cell the whole brain is replaced. It is Cell by cell the whole brain is replaced. It is then restored, by a reversal, to its original then restored, by a reversal, to its original

QuestionQuestion

• Would the person’s consciousness remain the Would the person’s consciousness remain the same throughout the process? same throughout the process?

• If the individual smells a flower when in both If the individual smells a flower when in both versions, either:versions, either:

• (a) consciousness that generates the resultant (a) consciousness that generates the resultant feelings still operates in the technological feelings still operates in the technological version, which is conscious in the same way, orversion, which is conscious in the same way, or

• (b) conscious mental events in the normal brain (b) conscious mental events in the normal brain have no connection to behavior and are missing have no connection to behavior and are missing in the technological brain, which is not in the technological brain, which is not conscious.conscious.

• Presumably after reversal the individual will be Presumably after reversal the individual will be conscious although they may suffer memory conscious although they may suffer memory loss loss

Oofle Dust and ModellingOofle Dust and Modelling

• Version (b) is called Version (b) is called epiphenomenalepiphenomenal, , something occurs but has no effect in the real something occurs but has no effect in the real world. Oofle dust – not science! world. Oofle dust – not science!

• Version (a) does require that replacement Version (a) does require that replacement neurons, and their connections, are identical to neurons, and their connections, are identical to the original. If we can, using present day the original. If we can, using present day physics, accurately form a model of the human physics, accurately form a model of the human brain then we should be able to carry out the brain then we should be able to carry out the experiment. experiment.

• One argument says that although we might be One argument says that although we might be able to copy the neurons extremely closely, we able to copy the neurons extremely closely, we will never be able to copy them ‘exactly’. Subtle will never be able to copy them ‘exactly’. Subtle differences due to chaotic behavior or quantum differences due to chaotic behavior or quantum randomness would still exist and these randomness would still exist and these differences are critical. differences are critical.

Penrose/WarwickPenrose/Warwick• Penrose - it is our present day understanding Penrose - it is our present day understanding

of physics that is to blame. For the very small of physics that is to blame. For the very small elements that cannot be copied “such non-elements that cannot be copied “such non-computational action would have to be found computational action would have to be found in an area of physics that lies outside the in an area of physics that lies outside the presently known physical laws”. If we could presently known physical laws”. If we could discover these laws then version (a) would be discover these laws then version (a) would be quite possible.quite possible.

• Warwick - In this argument we are not Warwick - In this argument we are not concerned whether or not the technological concerned whether or not the technological brain is conscious but whether or not it is brain is conscious but whether or not it is conscious in the same way as the original conscious in the same way as the original human brain. In the discussion of rational AI, human brain. In the discussion of rational AI, the possibility of artificial intelligence to be the possibility of artificial intelligence to be conscious, in its own way, is not in question. conscious, in its own way, is not in question. What is in question is whether this could be What is in question is whether this could be identical to human consciousness. identical to human consciousness.

Reality CheckReality Check• No matter how good the model, there will No matter how good the model, there will

be differences between the human and be differences between the human and technological brain. But the model could be technological brain. But the model could be very close, which means that the form of very close, which means that the form of consciousness exhibited by the consciousness exhibited by the technological brain could be so close to that technological brain could be so close to that of the human brain, as makes no difference. of the human brain, as makes no difference.

• This is a philosophical exercise. The human This is a philosophical exercise. The human brain is a complex organ, full of highly brain is a complex organ, full of highly connected neurons. If one neuron is connected neurons. If one neuron is actually removed then the overall effect actually removed then the overall effect may be negligible but may be dramatic, may be negligible but may be dramatic, with the individual’s behavior changing with the individual’s behavior changing completely. completely.

The Chinese RoomThe Chinese Room

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

The Argument IThe Argument I

• A computer takes Chinese characters as input and A computer takes Chinese characters as input and follows the instructions of a program to produce other follows the instructions of a program to produce other Chinese characters, which it presents as output.Chinese characters, which it presents as output.

• The computer does this so convincingly that it The computer does this so convincingly that it comfortably passes the Turing Test: it convinces a comfortably passes the Turing Test: it convinces a human Chinese speaker that it is itself a human human Chinese speaker that it is itself a human Chinese speaker. Chinese speaker.

• It could be argued that the computer "understands" It could be argued that the computer "understands" Chinese – Strong AIChinese – Strong AI

• Without "understanding" we cannot describe what the Without "understanding" we cannot describe what the machine is doing as "thinking". Because it does not machine is doing as "thinking". Because it does not think, it does not have a "mind" in anything like the think, it does not have a "mind" in anything like the normal sense of the word. Therefore "strong AI" is normal sense of the word. Therefore "strong AI" is mistaken (Searle).mistaken (Searle).

The Argument IIThe Argument II

• Suppose that you are in a closed room and that Suppose that you are in a closed room and that you have a book with an English/Czech version of you have a book with an English/Czech version of the same program. You can receive Chinese the same program. You can receive Chinese characters, process them according to the characters, process them according to the instructions, and produce Chinese characters as instructions, and produce Chinese characters as output. As the computer had passed the Turing output. As the computer had passed the Turing test this way, it is fair to deduce that you will be test this way, it is fair to deduce that you will be able to do so as wellable to do so as well

• There is no difference between the computer’s There is no difference between the computer’s role in the first case and the role you play in the role in the first case and the role you play in the latter. Each is simply following a program which latter. Each is simply following a program which simulates intelligent behavior. Yet you do not simulates intelligent behavior. Yet you do not understand a word of Chinese. Since you do not understand a word of Chinese. Since you do not understand Chinese we can infer that the understand Chinese we can infer that the computer does not understand Chinese either.computer does not understand Chinese either.

The Argument IIIThe Argument III

• Searle’s argument is that you have something Searle’s argument is that you have something more than the machinemore than the machine

• You could ‘learn’ Chinese – but the machine??You could ‘learn’ Chinese – but the machine??

• You can ‘understand’ a language – the You can ‘understand’ a language – the machine cannot - you have something extra, machine cannot - you have something extra, that the computer does not have! that the computer does not have! (consciousness)(consciousness)

• Humans have beliefs, while thermostats and Humans have beliefs, while thermostats and adding machines and shoes don'tadding machines and shoes don't

Comments on the Chinese Comments on the Chinese RoomRoom

• Obviously human-centricObviously human-centric

• Much philosophical discussionMuch philosophical discussion

• But what exactly is the conclusion?But what exactly is the conclusion?

• Searle -There are “properties" in Searle -There are “properties" in human human neuronsneurons that give rise to the mind. These that give rise to the mind. These properties cannot be detected by anyone properties cannot be detected by anyone outside the mind, otherwise the computer outside the mind, otherwise the computer couldn't pass the Turing Test. couldn't pass the Turing Test.

• This implies the human mind is This implies the human mind is epiphenomenal – oofle dustepiphenomenal – oofle dust

PointsPoints

• Can do exactly the same argument Can do exactly the same argument (Machine comms etc) to prove that (Machine comms etc) to prove that machines are conscious but humans machines are conscious but humans are notare not

• Human/shoe – machine/cabbageHuman/shoe – machine/cabbage

• Learning/programmed? Learning/programmed?

• Much philosophical argument though!Much philosophical argument though!

Technological Singularity Technological Singularity

• Vinge (1993) “Within 30 years we will Vinge (1993) “Within 30 years we will have the technological means to create have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence”superhuman intelligence”

• Warwick (1998) “There is no proof, no Warwick (1998) “There is no proof, no evidence, no physical or biological evidence, no physical or biological pointers that indicate that machine pointers that indicate that machine intelligence cannot surpass that of intelligence cannot surpass that of humans”. humans”.

• Moravec (2000) Robots will match human Moravec (2000) Robots will match human intelligence in 50 years then exceed it – intelligence in 50 years then exceed it – they will become our “Mind Children”.they will become our “Mind Children”.

Ray KurzweilRay Kurzweil

• ““a strong trend toward the merger of a strong trend toward the merger of human thinking with the world of human thinking with the world of machine intelligence”.machine intelligence”.

• ““There will no longer be any clear There will no longer be any clear distinction between humans and distinction between humans and computers”computers”

• Singularity – point where humans Singularity – point where humans lose controllose control

Steven HawkingSteven Hawking

• ““In contrast with our intellect, computers In contrast with our intellect, computers double their performance every 18 double their performance every 18 months.”months.”

• ““The danger is real that they could The danger is real that they could develop intelligence and take over the develop intelligence and take over the world.”world.”

• ““We must develop as quickly as possible We must develop as quickly as possible technologies that make a direct technologies that make a direct connection between brain and connection between brain and computer.”computer.”

CyborgsCyborgs

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

NextNext

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

Contact InformationContact Information

• Web site: Web site: www.kevinwarwick.comwww.kevinwarwick.com

• Email: Email: k.warwick@reading.ac.ukk.warwick@reading.ac.uk

• Tel: (44)-1189-318210Tel: (44)-1189-318210

• Fax: (44)-1189-318220Fax: (44)-1189-318220

• Professor Kevin Warwick, Department Professor Kevin Warwick, Department of Cybernetics, University of Reading, of Cybernetics, University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading, RG6 6AY,UKWhiteknights, Reading, RG6 6AY,UK