Who is afraid of AI?

Luciano Floridi, philosopher, professor of Philosophy and Ethics of Information at the Oxford Internet Institute argues that "[...] the efficiency of computers in solving problems is the very demonstration of the fact that they are devoid of human intelligence".

“I used to think you and the others were gods. Then I realized that you are only men. " - Westworld (the TV series)

The idea that any form of self-awareness can emerge from a computer is excluded a priori by any intellectual who is asked the question. And if the computational capabilities of computers have been showing exponential increases for years, the idea of ​​modern thinkers is that this evolution of computing has nothing to do with intelligence.

I doubt that these drastic positions of contemporary intellectuals underlie the fear of having to deal with truths charged with the occult: it is reassuring to think that AI is stupid, it is even more so to establish that their way of operating has nothing to do. with the human mind.

But is it really so?

The fear of the artificial man

The artificial mind is an image that is difficult to decipher even today, an image that frightens us and intellectually defeats us.

It is complicated to build philosophical thinking around the advent of the first sentient artificial being. Yet, if on the one hand many of us are convinced that soon a machine will question us about the meaning of life, on the other, none of the intellectuals I know has ever abandoned the more reassuring thesis according to which computers are not "intelligent" and cannot never elaborate such complex thoughts.

Let's start from a simple consideration: there isn't one defiuniversally shared notion of "intelligence" that can be used to demonstrate what is intelligent and what is not.

In the context of cognitive psychology, for example, intelligence is described as the "ability to solve problems" (in the jargon problem solving) one defidynamic concept that takes shape in relation to the surrounding world. This defition finally allows the application of empirical measurement criteria that are perfectly suited to the research on artificial minds.

Starting precisely from this formulation, the British mathematician Alan Turing was the first to describe artificial intelligence as "the ability of a machine to accomplish things that, to a human observer, would appear to be the result of the action of a human intellect".

In this singular turn of phrase, the introduction of a human observer in the estimation of the level of intelligence of an instrument allowed Turing to compare the intelligence of machines to that of man without the task of having to formulate an defiscientifically appreciable and consolidated definition of the latter.

This defition, which to date still best describes this discipline, does not seem to be based on a scientific-mathematical theory as solid as a theorem but rather on an apparently much more vague concept, something that moves between the new frontiers of technology and perception that man has of the reality that surrounds him. 

Philosophical or psychological question?

But Alan Turing didn't just give one defition of artificial intelligence, he devised a test for its measurement through a game known as the "Turing test".

The game foresees that a subject A must submit a series of questions to both a subject B and a machine C. The user A does not know which of the two answers each of his questions, but must indicate which of the answers he imagines have been processed from subject B and which from machine C. The number of times subject A confuses machine C with subject B will give us an estimate of the intelligence level of machine C.

In the Turing test the psychological component has a strong impact on the effectiveness of the test itself to such an extent that it could be said to represent the dominant element. And although this may seem simplistic, Turing's was a fundamental intuition that today underlies many branches of research.

We could say that the impossibility of attributing to intelligence one defiformal definition puts human intelligence within a logical short circuit where intelligence itself judges.

Is the birth of the artificial mind the beginning of the end?

A possible motivation for the behavior of intellectuals can be found in the television series Westworld, where the androids built in the image and likeness of human beings are implanted in the mind with the belief that they too are human. The scientists who built them try to avoid that the awareness of their condition as androids can lead to the emergence of a need for freedom and self-determination that leads to a conflict with the human species. If confronted with the truth of the facts, the androids would become aware of their existential condition and the consequences would be absolutely unpredictable and potentially terrible.

Perhaps not even the human mind will ever be able to elaborate a formalization of its functional structure: if we were able to describe the mind as something physical, programmable, devoid of its own spirituality, we might have to give up that romantic aura that envelops our lives. and that populates them with feelings, aspirations and goals that give a profound meaning to our lives? Would we be able to stop thinking of love as a "divine mechanics" and forever renounce any metaphysical and spiritual theory?

Shouldn't we be able to reconcile science and human feelings in awareness of the limits of our human nature?

It won't take long for someone to make a perfect simulation of it that can interact with us as humans do. The only certainty I have is that, when it happens, the best suggestion that the intellectuals of this age will be able to give us is to turn off the computer and pretend that nothing has happened.

Too easy. I would have expected something more.

Article extracted from the Post of Gianfranco Fedele, if you want to read theentire post click here