* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download PHILOSOPHY OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE Artificial intelligence
Survey
Document related concepts
Computer vision wikipedia , lookup
Human-Computer Interaction Institute wikipedia , lookup
Wizard of Oz experiment wikipedia , lookup
Computer Go wikipedia , lookup
Intelligence explosion wikipedia , lookup
Turing test wikipedia , lookup
Embodied cognitive science wikipedia , lookup
Human–computer interaction wikipedia , lookup
Visual Turing Test wikipedia , lookup
Existential risk from artificial general intelligence wikipedia , lookup
Chinese room wikipedia , lookup
Ethics of artificial intelligence wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
Artificial intelligence • “Artificial Intelligence is the science of making machines do things that would require intelligence if done by men” PHILOSOPHY OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE Marvin Minsky Prof.Dr John-Jules Meyer – Weak AI thesis – Strong AI thesis Dr Menno Lievers 2 Weak AI Thesis Strong AI Thesis • The computer is (only) a powerful aiding tool for the study of the human mind • An adequately programmed computer has a cognitive state - computer programs explain human cognition • It is possible to devise machines that behave like people and possess human capabilities, such as the ability to think, reason, ..., play chess, walk, ..., have emotions, pain, ... • It is possible to construct machines that perform useful “intelligent” tasks assisting human users – possible?? – desirable?! – Difficult enough?! 3 4 Can a machine think? The Turing Test • Try to first answer the question ‘in principle’, independent of available technology • Is consciousness necessary for thinking? • You may replace ‘thinking’ or ‘being intelligent’ by ’displaying cognitive activity’ • A human A communicates by email with a human B and a computer C • A poses questions to both B and C to discover which is the human • If A doesn’t succeed to distinguish B and C, the computer C passes the Turing Test 5 6 – Human mental processes are often non-conscious • 'sleeping problem solver' • 'blindsight' 1 Has the Turing Test been passed already? The Turing Test Set-Up C • Turing test: based on link between ’thinking' en 'conversation' • Two famous ‘conversation’ programs: B – ELIZA – PARRY • ELIZA and PARRY are based on relatively simple pattern matching algoritms: this is not thinking…?!! A 7 8 Objections against the Turing Test Objections against the Turing Test 1. Chimpanzee objection: chimpanzees, dolphins, ... will not pass the Turing Test, while they are obviously intelligent and able to think! So a negative result does not say anything about being able to think / being intelligent. 2. sensory versus verbal communication: the TT only concerns verbal communication: no test of the computer’s ability to relate words to things in the world. 9 Conclusion?! simulation objection: simulated X ≠ X. This objection says that thinking cannot ever be simulated perfectly 4. Black Box objection: the external behaviours are equal does not imply that the processes are themselves equal! 3. SUPERPARRY: program containing all conversations of length ≤100 words: is finite in principle and programmable; will pass the Turing test; however, does not think !?! 10 Can we improve the Turing Test ? • In any case we need the following criteria: – Output criterion: competition between two ‘agents’ – Design criterion: it is not about the humanlike way of thinking, think also of hypothetical aliens (or animals…) 11 12 2 What is thinking / intelligence? Symbol System Hypothesis • thinking is an intentional notion, it has goal/actiondirected; it has to do with explaining and predicting of behaviour −−−> planning, being flexible, adaptable • Generalise this notion: it is about being 'massively adaptable' → this notion is applicable to nontraditional matters such as extraterrestrial intelligence, animals, computers / machines (artificial intelligence) ∴ "robots are able to think" may then be a sensible statement • thinking = 'being massively adaptable' • Is this achievable using digital computers? – I.o.w. if we can make machines ‘think’, is a digital computer the right kind of machine? • symbol system hypothesis (SSH): yes!: – a universal symbol system (= general-purpose storedprogram computer): symbol manipulator operating by executing fundamental operations, such as branch, delete, output, input, compare, shift, write, copy is a 'massively adaptable' machine 13 Intelligent systems • An intelligent ('massively adaptable’) system should be able to: – – – – – – – – 14 GOFAI recipe for an IS (IS) 1. Use a sufficiently expressive, inductively defined, compositional language to represent 'real-world' objects, events, actions, relations, etc. 2. Construct an adequate representation of the world and the processes in it in a universal symbol system (USS) : extensive Knowledge Base (KB) 3. Use suitable input devices to obtain symbolic representation of environmental stimuli 15 16 Generate plans Analyze situations Deliberate decisions Reason and revise 'beliefs' Use analogies Weigh conflicts of interest, preferences Decide rationally on the basis of imperfect information Learn, categorize GOFAI recipe for an IS Employ complex sequences of the fundamental operations of the USS to be applied to the symbol structures of the inputs and the KB, yielding new symbol structures (some of these are designated as output) 5. This output is a symbolic representation of response to the input. A suitable robot body can be used to ‘translate’ the symbols into real behaviour / action 4. 17 • The SSH says: • In this way a thinking (= massively adaptable) machine is obtained! 18 3 Doubts about the SSH Status SSH • the SSH is an interesting conjecture, that may appear strange, but may be true after all (there are more strange things that are held to be true: e.g. relativity theory, quantum mechanics...); however: • How can such a machine really understand? • Or wonder whether a sentence is true? • or desire something? – Is there any evidence by the state of the art in AI?: • Not (yet): all AI at the moment is rather limited; the original GPS project has more or less failed, and modern AI is not yet sufficiently convincing(?!) • ... Etc. – Philosophical (analytical) considerations (Searle) 19 20 Strong Symbol System Hypothesis (SSSH) Philosophical objections against Strong AI & SSH: Searle • SSH: computers (i.e.. univ. symbol manipulators) can think • SSSH: ONLY computers (univ. symbol manipulators) can think, i.e. the only things capable of thinking are univ. symb. manip.; ergo, the human mind is a univ. symb. manip., a computer!!! • Is the question whether a computer is suitable device for thinking an empirical one? • Searle: the question whether a symbol manipulating device can think is not empirical, but analytical, and can be answered negatively : – The SSSH is even more controversial than the SSH. – a universal symbol manipulator (USS) operates purely syntactically and is not able to really understand what it is doing! – syntax is insufficient for dealing with semantics (= "understanding of what symbols actually mean") 21 Searle’s Gedankenexperiment 22 The Chinese room • John Searle tries to argue by means of a Gedankenexperiment that a computer cannot think, or more precisely, cannot perform an intelligent task, such as e.g. answer questions in Chinese about a Chinese text, and really understand what it is doing. ダソまめキずそぜゑわボ Text with questions in Chinese Sam Answers in Chinese Suppose we have a computer program Sam capable to answer questions in Chinese about Chinese texts 23 24 4 The Chinese room The Chinese room • Chinese room argument: – Joe in the room executing the computer program Sam manually, does not understand the story nor the questions, nor the answers: only manipulation of meaningless symbols: "Sam 'run' on a human computer" – Executing the program does not enable Joe to understand the story, questions, etc., ergo executing the program does not enable the computer to understand the story, questions etc. ! ダソまめキずそぜゑわボ Text with questions in Chinese Answers in Chinese Joe Replace computer program Sam by human Joe executing the program instructions 25 26 Chinese room: Searle’s conclusion But …?!? • running a program does not lead to understanding, believing, intending, thinking …! • But… cannot we ‘prove’ in the same way that humans (i.e. our brains) cannot think …?!? – Let the global population (5 billion people) simulate a brain B with its 100 billion neurons: then each person controls some 20 neurons – No person knows what B is thinking… – So, neither do(es) (the neurons in) brain B. • "merely manipulating symbols will not enable the manipulating device to understand X, believe Y, think Z..." ∴ the SSH is FALSE ! 27 28 The “Systems Reply” Counter-objection • 'The systems reply': Not only the symbol manipulator Joe is concerned but the system as a whole: it could be possible that the whole system does understand! • Searle contra de systems reply: 1. Joe does not understand, but Joe + paper + pencil would understand ?!? (cynically) 2. Let Joe learn all rules of the program by heart; then there is no ‘bigger’ system any more of which Joe is part; in fact everything is part of Joe in that case! 29 30 5 The Chinese room revisited And the debate goes on… • Searle: − SSH ⇒ 'toilet paper' machine (= TM) thinks as well ?!?! − biological objection to the SSH and AI ダソまめキずそぜゑわボ Text with questions In Chinese Answers in Chinese • Copeland: Joe − although Joe may say of himself that he does not understand, an external observer may still say that Joe does understand!!! 31 The Great Debates in AI 32 Can computers think? • Can computers think? • Can the Turing Test determine whether computers can think? • Can physical symbol systems think? • Can Chinese Rooms think? • Can connectionist networks think? Can computers think in images? • Do computers have to be conscious to think? • Are thinking computers mathematically possible? • Is the brain a computer? • Can computers have free will? • Can computers have emotions? • Can computers be creative? • Should we pretend computers will never be able to think? 35 36 Can the TT determine whether computers can think? Can computers think? • If a simulated intelligence passes, is it intelligent? • Does the imitation game determine whether computers can think? • Is passing / failing the test decisive? • Have any machines passed the test? • Is the test a legitimate intelligence test? • Does God prohibit computers from thinking? • Can computers understand arithmetic? • Can computers draw analogies? • Are computers inherently disabled? • Can computers reason scientifically? • Can computers be persons? 37 38 6 Can Physical Symbol Systems Think? Can Physical Symbol Systems Think? • Can the elements of thinking be represented in symbolic form? • Can physical symbol systems learn as humans do? • Do humans use rules as physical symbol systems do? • Can a symbolic knowledge base represent human understanding? • Can symbolic representations account for human thought? • Does thinking require a body? • Can physical symbol systems think dialectically? • Is the relation between hardware and software similar to that between human brains and minds? • Does mental processing rely on heuristic search? • Do physical symbol systems play chess as humans do? 39 40 Can Connectionist Networks Think? Can Chinese Rooms Think? • Can the Chinese Room, considered as a total system, think? • Can an internalized Chinese Room think? • Can brain simulators think? • Can robots think? • Do Chinese Rooms instantiate programs? • Can computers cross the syntax-semantics barrier? • Are connectionist networks vulnerable to the arguments against physical symbol systems? • Do connectionist networks follow rules? • Does the subsymbolic account offer a valid account of connectionism? 41 Can Computers Think in Images? • Can images be realistically represented in computer arrays? • Can computers recognize Gestalts? • Are images less fundamental than propositions? • Is image psychology a valid approach to mental processing? • Can computers represent the analogue properties of images? 42 Do Computers Have to Be Conscious to Think? • Can computers be conscious? • Is consciousness necessary for thought? • Is the consciousness requirement solipsistic? • Can functional states generate consciousness? • Can higher-order representations produce consciousness? 43 44 7 Are Thinking Computers Mathematically Possible? • Can automata think? • Does Gödel’s theorem show that machines can’t think / can’t be conscious? • Does Gödel’s theorem show that mathematical insight is nonalgorithmic? • Do mathematical theorems like Gödel’s show that computers are intrinsically limited? 45 8