Newsgroup: it.comp.ia
Titolo: Intervista in inglese

Vorrei che esprimeste una opinione circa i contenuti dell'intervista
rilasciata dal famoso ricercatore e teorico di Intelligenza Artificiale,
Marlon Oz, alla rivista americana HOLOGRAM.
[Inizio Intervista]
OZ: Artificial intelligence founders on two fundamental problems: the
problem of self-reference, and the problem of other-reference.
HOLOGRAM: Other-reference?
OZ: Yes. In order to be intelligent, one must be capable of manipulating
symbols, but that is not enough. What is usually not appreciated is the
fact that one must know that what one manipulates are symbols-in other
words, that the symbols have referents. 
HOLOGRAM; Could you . . . 
OZ: Make that clearer? I'll try. Remember, a symbol is by definition
something that stands for something else, and the symbols that we make
the most use of are words. There are, for example, two ways to use the
word "dog." The first way is to use it to refer to a certain species of
domesticated mammal. The second way is to refer to the word itself. For
example, if I ask. How many times does "dog" appear in this sentence?
it's obvious that I'm using the word in the second way.
The problem with artificial intelligence is that we know how to program
a computer to use words only in the-second way. In my book I demonstrate
that there is simply no way to encode an instruction that conveys the
symbol-referent relationship to something that isn't already operating
at a symbolic level. 
HOLOGRAM: Which means . . . 
OZ: That conscious, volitional intelligence is not algorithmic and
therefore can't be programmed. And although that argument is, in
itself, sufficient, I've also discovered another, independent, and
equally insuperable obstacle to programming a conscious intelligence.
HOLOGRAM: Having to do with self-refer-ence?
OZ: Correct. On that point my reasoning begins with a reconsideration
of Godel's incompleteness theorem.
HOLOGRAM: Dr. Oz, for the benefit of some of our readers who may be
unfamiliar with it, could you explain Godel's incomplete-ness theorem?
OZ: Godel's proof demonstrates that it is impossible to define a set of
rules for a mathemat-ical system with completeness. No matter how hard
you try to be complete, it will always be possible to construct certain
propositions about the system that cannot be proved true or false within
the limits of that particular system. There are exceptions to this, but
they're trivial. The basic problem is one of self-reference. Because
the system can refer to itself, it is always possible to make statements
that are paradoxical, and for which there are no satisfactory solutions
within the system. Russell and Whitehead had earlier attempted to
circumvent this problem by constructing certain hierarchical rules and
categories that were supposed to prevent self-reference paradoxes from
arising. Kurt Godel came along and demonstrated that such difficulties
arise anyway and are in fact inherent in the nature of such systems.
HOLOGRAM: But what does this have to do with artificial intelligence?
OZ: Two things, really. First, self-reference is an essential component
of what we would consider intelligence, as it is related to the idea of
self-awareness. For anything to be sentient, as we understand it, it
must be able to say, "This is I, and that isn't."
HOLOGRAM: So something that's self-aware is therefore conscious?
OZ: No. Self-awareness is necessary in order for consciousness to exist.
It is not, in itself, sufficient, but it is extremely important. You may
recall that when Adam and Eve eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge,
the next thing they do is cover their nakedness. They have become
self-conscious, which is a way of saying self-aware. There is another
connection to the question of artificial intelligence, and this is the
crucial one for my argument. A number of people have proposed that
Godel's proof implies that computer intelligence is impossible, or at
least that it would have to be fundamentally different from human
intelligence, because the human mind is capable of transcending the
limitations of Godel's proof, whereas a computer could not.
HOLOGRAM: That certainly sounds plausible.
OZ: It's asinine, but I'm not going to get into that right now. Godel's
proof is an inherent limit on certain formal operations of any
intelligence, human or otherwise. Precisely these formal operations,
however, must be applied when a human being writes a computer program.
It is also the kind of thinking that is necessary to investigate
questions like. What is the precise nature of human intelligence? For
this reason the exact nature of consciousness will always remain
inscrutable; because the phenomenon itself, and the only tool we have
for investigating it, are fundamentally incommensurable.
HOLOGRAM: I'm not sure I understand. 
OZ: That's all right; neither do most of my colleagues in the field of
artificial intelligence. But think of it this way: Can you grasp your
right fist with your right hand? Obviously not -your hand can't grasp
itself. But there's another, less obvious reason why you can't do it: As
soon as you open your right hand to grasp something, you no longer have
a right fist.
HOLOGRAM: So you feel that a true machine intelligence can never exist? 
OZ: That's not what I said. 
HOLOGRAM: But didn't you just get finished saying . . . I've got it
right here. 
OZ: No, don't play the tape back. You misunderstood me. What I said was
that artificial intelligence, that is, intelligence deliberately created
by human beings, is impossible. There is no theoretical reason that
machine intelligence can't evolve in the same way that human
intelligence did.
HOLOGRAM: Evolve? I don't think I understand how that could happen. 
OZ: Really? I should think that it's obvious. All that is necessary for
evolution to take place is for something to be capable of reproduction
and mutation, and be subject to a process of selection. If you think
about it, all three of these criteria apply to computer programs. I read
somewhere recently that there are now more than two hundred million
computers with access to the Internet. Now, imagine the number of
computers, the amount of memory, the processing power that is
interconnected. It's nothing less than an electronic biosphere.
HOLOGRAM: You make it sound as if computer programs are alive.
OZ: According to any but the most provincial definitions of life, they
are alive. Living things eat, excrete, reproduce. Some are able to
locomote, and most of them have ways of sens-ing the environment. There
is a computer analog for every one of those functions. 
HOLOGRAM: Aren't the kind of computer programs you're talking about
really more analogous to viruses, or other parasites, since they
require a host computer to exist? 
OZ: That's one way of looking at it, but by the same token, you could
say that the planet earth is a host and we're all parasites. No, I think
it makes more sense to see the computer hardware as the physical
substrate for these life-forms in the same way that chemical compounds
are the physical substrate for us. 
HOLOGRAM: But if an AI program did evolve, wouldn't it have to be
algorithmic? 
OZ: Not necessarily. Once a system reaches a certain level of
complexity, it begins to exhibit certain features that are
nonalgorithmic. 
HOLOGRAM: You're referring to chaos theory?
OZ: No, complexity theory. 
HOLOGRAM: What's the difference? 
OZ: Nobody knows. Chaos and complexity are like two snakes that are
swallowing each other's tails. At this stage no one's really sure where
one theory leaves off and the other one begins.
HOLOGRAM: So if you're right, then perhaps in a few million years
OZ: Million? I don't think so. Look, biological systems take a long
time to reproduce themselves. What's the average length of time for a
human generation? About twenty, twenty-five years? The human genome
contains about six billion base pairs, with four possibilities in each
position, so it's about one and a half gigabytes. The microprocessor in
your desktop computer can probably turn over that much information in
less than a second. And the entire human genome is not devoted to
intelligence. The difference between us and chimpanzees is only about
two percent. In some cases, maybe less.
HOLOGRAM: So we might expect to see computer intelligence evolve
sometime in the near future?
OZ: Do the math. The figures I just gave would suggest a ratio of
something like a billion to one in terms of evolutionary speed. Even if
I'm off by an order of magnitude, that would still mean compressing a
few billion years of evolution into no more than a couple of decades.
And I might just as easily be off in the other direction.
[Fine Intervista]
-- 
Max Manfrin
Via Orvieto, 7
59100 PRATO
ITALIA
Tel & Fax : 
(+39) 0574 35282
Email     : 
max.m...@conmet.it
PS: In realtà questo è un estratto da un libro. Sentite cosa ha scritto
Charles Sheffield a proposito di questo romanzo:
"Wyrm is a hugely enjoyable book. All hackers should have this book; so
should anyone interested in artificial intelligence, the Internet,
computer viruses, role-playing games, mythology, science fiction"
"WYRM"
di Mark Fabi
Editore Bantam Spectra Book
Aprile 1998
ISBN 0-553-57808-1
US $5.99


Senza avere letto il libro e' difficile capire che dice *esattamente*, ma il 
tutto pare abbastanza condivisibile; se non per l'idea (che pero' 
dall'intervista traspare soltanto, magari non e' quello che dice veramente) che 
un'evoluzione "autonoma" possa portare ad alcunche'. L'intelligenza umana si 
e' evoluta perche' c'era un'ambiente che selezionava in quel modo. 
L'"ambiente" in cui si muovono i programmi e' molto meno selettivo - come 
dimostra il fatto che Windows sopravvive e prospera. ;-)
-- 
God is Real, unless declared Integer.
ObjectZone - 
http://space.tin.it/computer/csadun

 at a symbolic level.
Questa e', mi pare, l'unica cosa nuova che sia stata scritta nell'estratto,
e mi piacerebbe avere sottomano la dimostrazione. Per il resto, sono cose
note e stra-note, ormai...
Ciao,
     Stefano
--
"E' con la sola volonta' che metto in moto il mio pensiero. [...]
Noi computer umani con la sola volonta' mettiamo in moto il pensiero.
E' col succo di Saffo che i pensieri acquistano rapidita'.
Le labbra si macchiano e le macchie sono un segno di riconoscimento.
Con la sola volonta' mettiamo in moto il pensiero."
Mentat Harkonnen

 US $5.99
Mi sono scordato di dire che è un libro di fantascienza - fantasia, e
che quindi ha attendibilità meno che nulla!!!
