Artificial intelligence – the American Heritage Dictionary defines it as the ability of a computer or other machine to perform those activities that are normally thought to require intelligence. While, as far as the general populace knows, we have yet to actually create a computer that possesses artificial intelligence, computer scientists around the world seek to do exactly that. In fact, talk-bots, programs that are designed to learn natural language, as well as a variety of other primitive AI systems have been around for some time (1). Many philosophical issues arise out of this field, primarily where ethics is concerned, but there is also plenty to be discussed as far as epistemology and metaphysics are concerned.
Speaking of metaphysics, that is a good place to start. Perhaps, the most obvious metaphysical assumption of artificial intelligence is that sentience does exist. If it did not, it would be a futile effort to try to replicate it. Furthermore, it is also assumed that not everything which exists has sentience. Again, it would be foolish to try to instill sentience in something that already had it. The last of the big assumptions mirrors the first. Just as it would be futile to replicate something which does not exist, it would also be a waste of time to try to reproduce sentience if it can not be manufactured. With some assumptions safely dealt with, perhaps it would be good to discuss the metaphysical implications of artificial intelligence. If it should come to pass that sentience can not be replicated, it raises a very important question. Is the whole greater than the sum of its parts? Clearly if machinery alone can not make an ersatz sentient being, there is something more to it than the physical. Moreover, if it is such, then determinism might be kaput. After all, if you admit that human awareness is not solely comprised of physical components, then how can you say that man is enslaved by the laws of physics? On the other hand, if we do truly create artificial intelligence, we are forced to question our views of self. Are we just biological robots? If we are, then determinism is, perhaps, after all, true. In which case, all sorts of theological questions come to the forefront. From this rise a panoply of ethical questions which will be discussed later.
Before moving into ethics, though, a couple of epistemological issues should be addressed. First of all, it must be assumed that one can differentiate between sentient and non-sentient life. While, perhaps, you can create sentient life without knowing it, the computer scientists of the world would surely assert than you would, even if not immediately, be able to distinguish at some point. In fact, the renowned Alan Turing proposed a test that he called “The Imitation Game (2).” This test, sometimes referred to as the Turing Test, is alleged to do exactly that, distinguish the sentient from the non-sentient. Whether or not it is truly possible to determine sentience, without such a determination we may never say with impunity that we have created a thinking machine.
Now, with formalities dealt with, the most interesting portion of this discourse can begin. There are untold numbers of ethical issues which surround artificial intelligence like clouds surround a mountaintop. Perhaps one of the greatest contributors to this field is author Isaac Asimov. A great many of his books and short stories revolved around robots and the ethics surrounding them. The most obvious of which is this: having created thinking machines, are we within our rights to place upon them additional restraints. Asimov placed three such restraints on his robots. The so-called Three Laws of Robotics placed human life before robotic life, essentially making them slaves. So, this raises the question, is biologically sentient life superior to synthetic sentient life, and if so, why? On one hand, being manufactured, robots are, in a sense, property to begin with, but does sentience make them eligible to the same inalienable rights which men are credited as having from birth? In other words, is being sentient the same as having a soul? Back to an earlier question, though, what if sentience is deterministic? Well, the first question is, does this preclude the existence of divinity? If so, then it is an inescapable conclusion that morality is a socially constructed system, and thus bereft, in any true sense, of sound reasoning other than the perpetuation of society itself. More esoterically, if sentient beings are deterministic in nature, then we can, without error, calculate the future. This so-called psycho-history raises questions asked in the movie Minority Report. Knowing the future, are we obligated to change it? I know not the answer to that, because changing the future seems to defy the concept of determinism.
There, in a nutshell, is the philosophy of artificial intelligence. In so far as metaphysics and epistemology are concerned, most of the issues are rather straightforward, virtually to the point of common sense. Although, questions about the truth of determinism form a nice segue into all sorts of interesting ethical question. Also, in the field of ethics, are questions about the equality of man and machine. Will there, some time from now, be sufferage for people of the digital persuasion? Only time will tell.
1 ELIZA, the original talk-bot can be found here:
http://www-ai.ijs.si/eliza/eliza.html and Mr. Mind, a talk-bot I find very realistic, can be found here:
http://www.mrmind.com/
2 For full text of Turing’s original article, “Computing Machinery and Intelligence” visit this website:
http://cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/arc...00/turing.html