Download Source Analysis

Page |1
Patrick Davis
Colin Hull
English 1010
July 16, 2012
Source Analysis
In recent discussions of Future technologies, a controversial issue has been Artificial
Intelligence Technology. Some individuals argue that there are many issues to be accounted for
when discussing AI and the implications of their existence. Three individual’s views on this topic
include the viewpoints of Nick Bostrom, Sean Robsville, and Edwin Furse.
Bostrom:
On one hand, some, such as Nick Bostrom part of the philosophy faculty at Oxford
University, argues that “there are problems and benefits with Super Intelligences”. From this
perspective Bostrom makes it clear that if the AI created can connect with humans on a
“friend” level that we can coexist harmoniously. This viewpoint describes how AI, once
implanted with the concept that humans are friends, can realize the benefits of helping us and
cause no harm. Bostrom also adds how once the concept of “friend” is branded into the
programmed mind of an AI it can never be removed. Bostrom says “it is crucial that it be
provided with human-friendly motivations”. In his argument for the importance of making
friendliness an AI’s main motivation Bostrom tackles the topic of “should development be
Page |2
delayed or accelerated”. This section of his 5 point article lists some of the problems being
wrong motivations of its creators and a list of the benefits this super intelligence could create.
The other four sections of Bostrom’s views are why super intelligences are different,
what their moral thinking might include, and the importance of their motivations. His paper
references other writers such as Robert A Freitas, writer of many books on Nanotechnology,
and Eric K Drexler, author of Engines of Creation. Bostrom’s argument is backed up by a lot of
other credible sources opinions and each one adds to the ethos of his article. However, citing
these sources in APA format instead of MLA format detract from informing the reader of the
credentials of these sources because they are not listed in the text.
Furse:
Still others such as Edmund Furse, researcher at the Department of Computer Studies,
argue that intelligent robots will exist and that they will have a religious life also. This point of
view is an argument that this other form of intelligence, separate from ours, will exist and
details how they will act. Furse has a six sided argument for Strong AI. The first part of this
argument describes how neuroscience will find a way to map the human brain in time. The
second part describes how we are coming closer to recognizing how the mind works, and how
our increasing technology is going to progress to a super advanced processor that could be the
same size as the human brain. The third part compares the human brain to a machine. The
fourth part describes how attempts at creating an artificial intelligence are coming closer and
closer to actualization. The fifth argument describes algorithm and them becoming more
identifiable. The sixth and final argument states all we need to do to create a Strong AI is to first
Page |3
understand how the human brain learns. These various perspectives show us that the issue can
been seen from many different views. These views can range from religious, arguments for and
against their creation, as well as argument if the possibility is even reachable and what it will be
like.
A good portion for the rest of Furse’s argument details the religious life of future robots
and are weighted heavily towards Furse’s religion Christianity, of which he is a the chairman of
the Catholic Psychology Group. These sections in his article discussing robotic religion have a lot
of ethos to them, because he identifies with the readers who are religious with discussing
things like “the priesthood” “the Holy Eucharist” and “baptism of robots”. These views, given
his belief structure are also reflected in his moral and social issues section where he, while
discussing losing jobs to robots says “If there is nothing for us to do, then we can always
worship God”.
Robsville:
On the other hand, however, others, such as Sean Robsville, a writer and blogger of
many Buddhist articles, argue only arguments against Artificial Intelligence. Robsville gives us
the definition of computationalism and materialism and relates them to artificial intelligence.
Using computationalism as a platform and Buddhism as a reference, Robsville argues to how a
true AI could not exist. Computationalism is described by Robsville as “the view that all human
mental activities are reducible to algorithms, and could therefore be implemented into a
computer”. For those who maintain this belief, Artificial Intelligence is definitely in the
foreseeable future. However Buddhists believe that existence is much more than any
Page |4
computable calculation and does not believe that humanistic artificial intelligence could ever
exist based on its non-sentient properties. On top of not being a very credible source, Robsville
has a Buddhism biased lean in his article which is a notable position he takes juxtaposed to
other articles he has written. According to Robsville Technological AI can only express “some”
features of human intelligence. Robsville states that “the real test of Artificial Intelligence
would be to produce a general purpose algorithm-creating algorithm”. According to this view
Buddhists believe this algorithm could never be programmed or created.
These three views take us three different directions on the subject of artificial
intelligence. Bostrom’s view tries to tackle their motives among other things, while Furse covers
how they will react after creation and their pros and cons, and lastly Robsville argues the
possibility of their creation. All views are well explained and argued. While Robsville has the
least amount of sources and not the strongest credentials, Bostrom uses many credible sources
in his article, and Furse as a university researcher at the Department of Computer Science uses
opinions that are all his own.
I think that the best and most reputable argument of these writers is Bostrom’s because
of all his neurologist and nanotechnologist sources. After researching into the background of his
sources it’s hard to believe that with all of the books they’ve had published by reputable
publishers that his ideas are not credible. Robsville’s article seems too short of a paper to
accurately explain what he was trying to, and could have used more references and length.
While both of these two men used sources in their articles Furse’s was quiet possibly the most
entertaining based on the topics he covered and how humorous it was that he even tackled
Page |5
such things as “Is the creation of an intelligent robot an act that only God should do?” and ”
Will robots marry and have children?”.