Xref: utzoo comp.ai:2952 talk.philosophy.misc:1756
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!ray
From: ray@bcsaic.UUCP (Ray Allis)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Why discuss consciousness and free will? (longish)
Keywords: consciousness, free will, mind, intelligence, definitions
Message-ID: <9378@bcsaic.UUCP>
Date: 21 Dec 88 17:44:13 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services ATC, Seattle
Lines: 141

>From: huntley@nprdc.arpa (David Huntley)
>Subject: a small subset of AI
>
>Comp.ai suggests to me something very specific:  AI (as we understand the
>engineering discipline) on computers.  AI, as an engineering discipline,
>is in my mind an indisputably useful one.  AI research has resulted in
>formal languages better suited to certain kinds of practical problems.
>Neural networks, a software/hardware creation, extends the applications to
>which computers can be put.  Process control, inventory management,
>forecasting, industrial robots are all improved by AI techniques.  Also,
>work is being done on computer models of the brain in the general area of
>physiology.  If a computer model of the brain sufficiently complex to
>allow a mapping between "damage" and degraded performance can be
>developed, so much the better. With computers that already perform the
>written-to-spoken conversion, a tool for the study of aphasia seems to be
>at hand.
>
>Can anyone tell me how AI on computers entails consideration of free-will,
>self-awareness, consciousness, subconsciousness, unconsciousness or, in
>short, non-biological human replication?
>
>I understand that one can fantasize, create and share in science fiction.
>But why not do that in genetic.engineering.slave.colony ?
>
>David huntley@nprdc.arpa
>    "These two cents belong exclusively to me."

Here's your two cents, and I'll raise you two...

In almost any application, computer systems will continue to become more
sophisticated and complex.  It's already impossible to guarantee the entire
repertoire of performance of our most sophisticated systems.  It is clearly
foolish to put such systems in control of critical situations.

Even though we cannot *guarantee* the performance of humans, we are
somewhat comforted by the belief that, in general, they share our *values*,
and we can predict with some confidence what other people will do by
imagining what we would do.  Not so with machines.  How would an "expert
system" handle the decision as to exactly when to give up searching for
survivors in the Armenian earthquake, remove desperate fathers, grieving
mothers, husbands, wives, and children from the area and begin bulldozing?

Present forecasting systems are just accountant's worksheets which have
been mechanized; any significance of the input parameters is judged by the
human designer.  Any planner (e.g. battle) or predictor (e.g. economic)
worth the name should be able to predict *my* behavior should it, for
example, threaten my daughter's life.

Artificial Intelligence is NOT a specialty interest within Computer
Science, the inverse is true.  That attitude simply reflects a dismal lack
of imagination.  And AI is most definitely not yet an engineering
discipline.  The discussion in comp.ai demonstrates that definitions are
still vague and most questions are open.  Put bluntly, AI's poor reputation
and embarrassing lack of results are largely due to a mistaken belief in
the supremacy of formal logic and premature attempts at engineering without
benefit of theory.  We're still not agreed what intelligence IS, for
heaven's sake!

Considering the investment involved, we would like our Mars Explorer to
avoid stupid acts (like falling down some slope) which will compromise its
mission.  The way things are, we'll have to try to foresee every possible
situation the robot may encounter, try to  provide explicit instructions
for every condition, and cover with delayed-action corrections or
additions.  We *cannot* tell an autonomous machine enough for it to handle
all the situations it will encounter.  There *will* be unexpected problems
and the machine will have to cope or fail in its mission.

Conversely, how good it would have been to collect a couple thousand
airplane-manufacturing robots from the Boeing plants here in Seattle and
fly them to Leninakan and Spitak.  "O.K.," we'd say, "You little guys
explore down in the rubble for survivors.  Be careful not to cause it to
collapse and crush anybody.  When you find someone, tell these big guys,
the reachers and heavy lifters, so they can move the concrete and steel and
remove the trapped people."  This alone seems to me an excellent reason to
try to build smart machines.

I'd be delighted with a gadget to which I could say "Squeaky, you're
responsible for the family diet.  Make up menus, procure the groceries and
prepare the meals.  We have normal requirements, no one is diabetic or
anything like that, but I hate cooked carrots, and little Jimmie is
allergic to strawberries.  For now, you'll have two hundred dollars per
week.  Let me know if you have problems."

If we are to *communicate* with our machines we need to *understand* each
other (two more poorly defined words).  These "machines" will need (among
many other things) most of the "normal" complement of human sensory
equipment.  Otherwise, how can they understand the purpose of agriculture,
(But WHY do you cultivate plants?) or culinary art (But WHY do you heat
bovine muscular tissue until it begins to decompose?) or rage ("Rambo" made
*how much* money?  WHY?), or sexual attraction, or just about ANYTHING
about people and the world in which we (and they) exist.

Really high-payoff autonomous systems (say nuclear power plants) will be
useless (or worse, dangerous) as long as they don't *think*.  We are
currently haggling over the meaning of notions such as *intelligent*,
*think*, *believe*, *emotion*, *self-consciousness* etc., etc. and etc. in
the expectation that such understanding is necessary to make machines
*think*.

I look forward to much more than dexterous robots.  I want a library which
can give me a useful answer to "What is Muslim?" or "Why is there an
Arab-Israeli conflict?".  I want a "machine" (don't assume digital
computers) which can translate Goethe and Shakespeare without losing the
author's imagery and *intent*.  I want a machine which, answering my
questions, includes Arabic, Hebrew, Chinese, Russian literature, religious
and philosophical material in the original languages.  To do this, the
machine must *understand* language.  Nothing even remotely close to that
exists today.  Maybe you could have a system which can answer *your*
question.

Why do I want to build thinking machines?  Well, for one thing, I believe
they can help us manage our world, assist in the terribly complex problems
of global society.  And damn' right I want machines smarter than the
average human.  Who's going to help eliminate the conflict between
Catholics and Protestants in Ireland?  Politicians?  Ha, ha.  Where are the
machines which will help us find a way for everyone on the African
continent to live a productive life?  Who's going to sort out food
production, distribution and political bullshit so nourishment is in the
right place at the right time and I don't have to look at pictures of
two-year-olds with distended bellies?

I imagine machines (artifacts constructed by humans) who will participate
as partners in the pursuit of the goals of a common society.  Of course
there will be variation from "normal" human intellect.  We should actively
explore such variations, but exploration should be deliberate, planned and
purposeful.  Suppose we build a thinker which is not limited to the "seven
plus or minus 2" limit, say extend it to "7,000 plus or minus 100"?  Or
seven hundred million?  Suppose the Library of Congress was contained in
one mind which could associate anything with anything else?  Sure it's
science fiction.  My sixth grade teacher laughed at me for believing people
would go to the moon.  The payoffs for AI will be much larger!

Culture (cultural knowledge) is one of the major advantages humans have
over the other animals on this planet.  But culture is useless just sitting
in libraries.  Some *one* has to *use* it.  We want to make machines which
can *learn* this body of knowledge, add to it, and *do something* with it.
I want to build *minds*, and that's why I wrinkle my forehead and
wonder about consciousness and free will.

Disclaimer?  Redundant, my employer has already disclaimed me.
ray@atc.Boeing.com