Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!nrl-cmf!ukma!gatech!purdue!bu-cs!mirror!rayssd!raybed2!linus!mbunix!bwk
From: bwk@mitre-bedford.ARPA (Barry W. Kort)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Defining Machine Intelligence.
Summary: Mastering the creation of consciousness.
Keywords: I am.  I think.  Therefore I think I am.
Message-ID: <42964@linus.UUCP>
Date: 13 Dec 88 14:48:40 GMT
References: <484@soleil.UUCP> <4216@homxc.UUCP> <401@uwslh.UUCP> <1111@dukeac.UUCP> <404@uwslh.UUCP> <713@quintus.UUCP> <405@uwslh.UUCP> <622@htsa.uucp> <42361@linus.UUCP> <408@uwslh.UUCP> <42835@linus.UUCP> <14949@mimsy.UUCP>
Sender: news@linus.UUCP
Reply-To: bwk@mbunix (Barry Kort)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, Bedford, Mass.
Lines: 54

I very much enjoyed reading Gary Anderson's fantasy about his
grandaughter's science project.  Gary posits the scenario which
Christoperh Lishka and I suggested about a pre-conscious AI system
unexpectedly asserting, "I am."

In article <14949@mimsy.UUCP> anderson@secd.cs.umd.edu (Gary Anderson) writes:

 > INTRODUCTORY JOKE:
 > How would we know it wasn't a bug in the code, or a virus?:-)

It's not a bug.  It's a feature.  :-)

 > If no one can find code which led to the behavior, then perhaps we have
 > found a machine with self awareness, and perhaps free will, but I don't
 > see how I can call this behavior artificial, any more than I can call
 > my granddaughter artificial.

Aha.  Perhaps the distinction between carbon-based consciousness
and silicon-based consciousness is not in the nature of the
consciousness, and not in the nature of the artificiality.  Perhaps
the distinction is just in the nature of the underlying molecular substrate.

 > I expect my granddaughter to have consciousness, free will,
 > and self awareness  even if I have no real way to verify this.

My only comment would be to change the word "have" to the word "achieve".

 > Yet, even though I am taking no
 > small part in her creation and development,
 > I feel awkward taking credit for her free 
 > will and self awareness.

Perhaps it would be fair to say that you empowered her to achieve
those goals, but the achievement belongs to her.

 > MY QUESTION:
 > 
 > In what sense can a researcher take credit for (claim as artificial)
 > any consciousness which he were able to observe in whatever artifact he
 > should create?

Rather than "take credit", perhaps the researcher would be content
to enjoy the fruits of his labor.  

 > CONCLUDING JOKE:
 > 
 > If the goal of artificial intelligence is to create entities with 
 > consciousness, free will, and self awareness, there is an alternative
 > method which is a lot easier to master than LISP or Prolog.

True.  It's also easier to screw up.  Perhaps some of us would like
to make our mistakes on silicon substrates before we tackle the
creation of the next generation of carbon-based life forms.

--Barry Kort