Talk:Philosophy of artificial intelligence

message: Personally I have a bone to pick with this intro:
"
Can a machine have a mind, mental states and consciousness  in the same sense humans do? Can it feel?
"
Okay, maybe I'm not a professional philosopher, but shouldn't we say "in the same sense that sentient animals do" instead of just "in the same sense humans do"? Obviously any sentient animal has a consciousness, it's just that some of them have much less sophisticated ones that's all. Children of the dragon (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: What about other animals?

message: The article might benefit fromm a discussion of Maudlin's "olympia" argument.
1Z 00:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maudlin 

message: This article should contain more discussion of the serious academic debates about the possibility/impossibitity of artificial intelligence, including such critics as John Lucas, Hubert Dreyfus, Joseph Weizenbaum and Terry Winograd, and such defenders as Daniel Dennett, Marvin Minsky, Hans Moravec and Ray Kurzweil.  John Searle is the only person of this caliber who is discussed.
In my view, issues derived from science fiction are far less important than these.  Perhaps they should be discussed on a page about artificial intelligence  in science fiction. Is there such a page? CharlesGillingham 11:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. -- Schaefer (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Some text could be moved to Artificial intelligence in fiction. Critics can be listed here but maybe a discussion of the debate may belongs in Strong AI vs. Weak AI? --moxon 15:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Real Debate. 

message: Here it is, as far as I got:
Source:
In the article "Prospects for Mathematical Logic in the Twenty-First Century", Sam Buss suggests a "three-fold view of proof theory" (his Table 1, p. 9) that includes in column 1, "Constructive analysis of second-order and stronger theories", in column 2, "Central problem is P vs. NP and related questions", and in column 3, "Central problem is the "AI" problem of developing "true" artificial intelligence" (Buss, Kechris, Pillay, Shore 2000:4).
: "I wish to avoid philosophical issues about consciousness, self-awareness and what it means to have a soul, etc., and instead seek a purely operational approach to articial intelligence. Thus, I define artificial intelligence as being constructed systems which can reason and interact both syntactically and semantically. To stress the last word in the last sentence, I mean that a true artifical intelligence system should be able to take the meaning of statements into account, or at least act as if it takes the meaning into account." (Buss on p. 4-5)
He goes on to mention the use of neural nets (i.e. analog-like computation that seems to not use logic -- I don't agree with him here: logic is used in the simulations of neural nets -- but that's the point -- this stuff is open). Morever, can I am not sure that Buss eliminate "consciousness" from the discussion? Or is consciousness a necessary ingredient for an AI? 
Description: 
Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and some of the stories of Edgar Allan Poe (e.g. The Tell-Tale Heart) opened the question. Also Lady Lovelace [??] Since the 1950's the use of the Turing Test has been a measure of success or failure of a purported AI. But is this a fair test? [quote here?] (Turing, Alan, 1950, Computing Machinery and Intelligence, Mind, 59, 433-460. http://www.loebner.net/Prizef/TuringArticle.html 
A problem statement requires both a definition of "intelligence" and a decision as whether it is necessary to, or if so how much to, fold "consciousness" into the debate.
> Philosphers of Mind call an intelligence without a mind is a zombie (cf Dennett, Daniel 1991, Consciousness Explained, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, -1 (pb) ):
: "A philospher's zombie, you will recall, is behaviorally indistinguishable from a normal human being, but is not conscious. There is nothing it is like to be a zombie; it just seems that way to observers (including itself, as we saw in the previous chapter)". (italics added or emphasis) (Dennett loc cit:405) 
Can an artificial, mindless zombie be truly an AI? No says Searle:
:"Information processing is typically in the mind of an observer . . . the addition in the calculator is not intrinsic to the circuit, the addition in me is intrinsic to my mental life.... Therefore, we cannot explain the notion of consciouness in terms of information processing and symbol manipulations" (Searle 2002:34). "Nothing is intrinsically computational. computation exists only relative to some agent or observer who imposes a computational interpretation on some phenomenon" (Searle 2002:17).
Yes says Dennett:
:"There is another way to address the possibility of zombies, and in some regards I think it is more satisfying. Are zombies possible? They're not just possible, they're actual. We're all zombies [Footnote 6 warns not to quote out of context here]. Nobody is conscious -- not in the systematically mysterious way that supports such doctrines as epiphenomenalism!"((Dennett 1991:406) 
> Gandy 1980 throws around the word "free will". For him it seems an undefined concept, interpreted by some (Sieg?) to mean something on the order of "Randomness put to work in an effectively-infinite computational evironment" as opposed to "deterministic" or "nondeterministic" both in a finite computational environment (e.g. a computer). 
>Godel's quote: "...the term "finite proceedure" ... is understood to mean "mechanical procedure". concept of a formal system whose essence it is that reasoning is completely replaced by mechanical operations on formulas" ... [but] the reults mentioned in this postscript do not establish any bounds for the powers of human reason, but rather for the potentialities of pure formalism in mathematics."(Godel 1964 in Undecidable:72)  
Importance:
> AC (artificial consciousness, an AI with a feeling mind) would no less than an upheavel in human affairs
> AI as helper or scourage or both (robot warriors)
> Philosophy: nature of "man", "man versus machine", how would man's world change with AI's (robots)? Will it be good or an evil act to create a conscious AI? What will it be like to be an AI? (cf Nagel, Thomas 1974, What Is It Like to be a Bat? from Philosophical Review 83:435-50. Reprinted on p. 219ff in Chalmers, David J. 2002, Philosophy of Mind: Classsical and Contemporary Readings, Oxford University Press, New York .)
> Law: If conscious, does the AI have rights? What would be those rights?
Current Conjecture:
An AI is feasible/possible and will appear within this century.
This outline is just throwing down stuff. Suggestions are welcome. wvbaileyWvbailey 16:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of open problems in computer science]]: Artificial Intelligence 

message: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21271545/
Bill Wvbailey 16:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this might useful for the ethics of artificial intelligence. (Which is completely disorganized at this point). ---- CharlesGillingham 18:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Interesting article, possible references

message: I've added some information on how Searle is using the word "consciousness" and a one paragraph introduction to the idea. I've also added a section raising the issue of whether consciousness is even necessary for general intelligence. I think these issues must be discussed here, rather than anywhere else.
The article is now too long, so I plan to move some of this material out of here and into Chinese Room, Turing Test, physical symbol system hypothesis and so on. ---- CharlesGillingham 18:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plan

message: :I think this article should be fairly stable now. ---- CharlesGillingham 19:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite is more or less complete 

message: From the article:
:In 1931, Kurt Gödel proved that it is always possible to create statements that a formal system (such as an AI program) could not prove. A human being, however, can (with some thought) see the truth of these "Gödel statements". [...] Consider: Lucas can't assert the truth of this statement. This statement is true but cannot be asserted by Lucas. This shows that Lucas himself is subject to the same limits that he describes for machines, as are all people, and so Lucas's argument is pointless.
This is baffling. For one thing, using the dictionary definition for "assert", Lucas can obviously assert anything he pleases. Whatever could the intended meaning be here? Besides, for there to be "the same limits", shouldn't the word be "prove" as in the first sentence, not "assert"? Also, what is the standard of proof for the AI program, and what is it for Lucas? It seems to me that the standard is "please convince yourself of the fact", unless there is some external formal system (such as ZFC) in which the proof is to be given. Is it tacitly assumed that the program is consistent, but Lucas may not be? (humans usually are not!) In any case, there's a lot of room for clarification here. -- Coffee2theorems (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lucas section 

message: Please see http://feelingcomputers.blogspot.comInsectIntelligence (talk) 08:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  A way to build feelings to computers 

message: This entire section of the article seems to be derived from a single person's opinions. I'm new, so I hesitate to simply delete that portion, but It bothers me in it's paranoid incorrectness. ---- Zale12 (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I counted three different references, plus a few tags asking for sourcing. That's the way wikipedia works. The constructive response to this apparent "thinness" of sourcing is for you to make improvements (e.g. sourcing, corrections to errors etc together with sourcing) rather than tear it apart. (Besides we'd revert your edits, anyway, so you'd be wasting everyone's time). Said another way, if you can't make constructive improvements, then don't do anything at all; leave it for other editors who can fix the problems. Your goal should be contributor, not critic. ---- BillWvbailey (talk) 02:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to have been chanced from the version I saw. (I was talking about the 3rd through 5th paragraphs regardless, which cite no sources). I decided to point out that it clashed noticeably with the style of writing I normally see in Wikipedia and decided to bring it to the knowledge of people who would know what to do, rather than breaking some rule inadvertently. Rest assured, I have no intention of making any sort of nonconstructive edits. Or indeed, as of now, any edits at all. ---- Zale12 (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

text: This is a subfield of the philosophy of mind and has been discussed by most of the major philosophers, such as Daniel Dennett, John Searle, Hillary Putnam, and Jerry Fodor. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 07:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can Machines Have Emotions: Artificial Emotion 

message: I've corrected the statement about quantum mechanical processes. His argument is that there must be new physics going beyond ordinary quantum mechanics because that's the only way to get non computable processes, some new physics that we don't yet have - of course he is also a physicist himself working on ideas for Quantum Gravity.
The rebuff of his arguments that follows is extremely poor. Penrose and Lucas's arguments are not countered by such simple statements as this. It is a long and complex debate, which I think would be rather hard to summarize in a short space like this. I'm not sure what to do about it though. It would be a major task to summarize the argument in detail, which now spans many books and papers. And a short summary would do it an injustice. There are many papers that claim to disprove his arguments. But in philosophy, when you have a paper by one philosopher which disproves the arguments of another philosopher - this is part of an on going debate, and it doesn't mean that these arguments are disproved in some absolute sense - unless their opponent concedes defeat. So one shouldn't present these counter arguments as if they are in some absolute sense the generally accepted truth, as this passage does - it presents it as if Penrose's ideas have been disproved.
Obviously Penrose for one does not accept the counter arguments, and has his own counter counter arguments, in his later books such as the Shadows of the Mind, and so the debate continues. His is a minority view on ai, sure, but in philosophy you get many interesting minority views. E.g. Direct Realism to take an example, is only about one well known, famous, mainstream philosopher who holds to it, Hilary Putnam but that is enough for it to be a respected philosophical view. Robert Walker (talk) 12:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now expanded both sections. Just the briefest summary of some of the main points in the debate, but hopefully it will help. Includes McCullough's argument, and Penrose's reply to it - the Hoffstader quote of course precedes Penrose's book. Robert Walker (talk) 13:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Penrose's argument

message: In the "Searle's Chinese room" section there is a phrase: "Searle goes on to argue that actual mental states and consciousness require (yet to be described)" but it is an unfulfilled promise since the notion of consciousness is never explained in that section.
Tygielzchaosem (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Arguments that a computer cannot have a mind and mental states

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Philosophy of artificial intelligence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090630002221/http://www.asimovlaws.com:80/articles/archives/2004/07/why_we_need_fri_1.html to http://www.asimovlaws.com/articles/archives/2004/07/why_we_need_fri_1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Philosophy of artificial intelligence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090501041325/http://vesicle.nsi.edu/users/izhikevich/human_brain_simulation/Blue_Brain.htm to http://vesicle.nsi.edu/users/izhikevich/human_brain_simulation/Blue_Brain.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081007162810/http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~cfs/472_html/AI_SEARCH/PSS/PSSH4.html to http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~cfs/472_html/AI_SEARCH/PSS/PSSH4.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923204614/http://www.class.uh.edu/phil/garson/MindsBrainsandPrograms.pdf to http://www.class.uh.edu/phil/garson/MindsBrainsandPrograms.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Hi. I have expanded the article's lead. Please feel free to edit it if you find any error on inappropriate content. You can also message me if you have questions or clarifications. Thanks. - Darwin Naz (talk) 00:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead edit 

message: Thoughts?
LS (talk) 08:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a section devoted to meta-AI? Bringing up notions from linguistics and CS? Code Person (talk) 02:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artificial Intelligence of Artificial Intelligence 

message: ChatGPT: As a language model AI, I don't have access to Wikipedia. But I can suggest adding the following to the article about the philosophy of AI:
1. Deep Learning and Artificial Neural Networks: In recent years, deep learning has emerged as the most successful technique in AI, and it is based on artificial neural networks. These networks are designed to simulate the neural networks found in the human brain, and they are capable of learning from large amounts of data.
2. Ethics of AI: With the latest advancements in AI, there is a growing concern about the ethics of AI. Some experts argue that AI has the potential to cause significant harm to humanity, and that we need to ensure that AI is developed in a responsible and ethical manner.
3. AI and Human Creativity: Another important area of the philosophy of AI is the relationship between AI and human creativity. Some argue that AI has the potential to enhance human creativity, while others argue that AI will eventually replace human creativity altogether.
4. The Singularity: The concept of the singularity, or the idea that AI will eventually surpass human intelligence, is a highly debated topic in the philosophy of AI. Some experts argue that the singularity is inevitable, while others argue that it is unlikely to ever happen.
5. The Future of AI: As AI continues to advance, it is important to consider what the future of AI might look like. Some experts argue that AI will eventually replace many jobs and have a major impact on the economy, while others argue that AI will be integrated into our lives in a more subtle and nuanced way.
By including these latest advancements, the article about the philosophy of AI can provide a more comprehensive and up-to-date overview of the field.
2A01:CB00:10A8:3F00:494A:AFCD:70D9:BA92 (talk) 13:50, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the article is rather disorganised at the moment. (Though most of the items above have their own pages.) Antepali (talk) 10:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested edit via ChatGPT 

message: The article on "artificial philosophy" was inappropriately redirected to this page. Artificial philosophy is concerned with how AI thinks of itself (see Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, Louis Molnar) and the philosophy of artificial intelligence has to do with humans' philosophy about AI; two VERY different things. 
Please restore the previous page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chasduncan (talk • contribs) 02:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The deleted article was based on a single article by one "Louis Molnar" - who does not appear to be notable. The article itself was never published in any peer-reviewed journal, but rather self-published on ResearchGate, so the original article is not a reliable source per Wikipedia standards. Nor are there any third-party sources which define or discuss the term that I can find. When reliable source take note of this usage, then Wikipedia can have an article on it. Until then, it's a good redirect. Unless you can provide reliable sources which define and cover the topic? Skyerise (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Artificial philosophy is not the same as the philosophy of artificial intelligence

message: The section "Introduction to Artificial Experientialism" seems original research. It has even the format of a reseacrh paper with numbered sections. Should it be deleted? Matencia29 (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  It may be research (and yes, "reseacrh" is a much more appropriate term!) or a textbook, but it's not a Wikipedia article. Certes (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

text: Yes, it's a paper and a very very unusual position. The Internet will tell you immediately who did this. Antepali (talk) 10:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research in "Artificial Experientialism"? 

message: This article has been highjacked by a person to further their own position, which is unknown and unsupported in the community. They pasted a whole paper in here. This is against the principles of Wikipedia & thus has to be removed. Antepali (talk) 10:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Artificial Experientialism"