AIList-REQUEST@AI.AI.MIT.EDU (AIList Moderator Nick Papadakis) (05/25/88)
Return-Path: <@AI.AI.MIT.EDU:LAWS@KL.SRI.COM>
Return-Path: <@MITVMA.MIT.EDU:ST401843@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Date: Wed, 11 May 88 13:34:09 EDT
From: Thanasis Kehagias <ST401843%BROWNVM.BITNET@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Subject: AI is about Death
To: AI List <AILIST@SRI.COM>
ReSent-Date: Thu, 12 May 88 08:44:14 PDT
ReSent-From: Ken Laws <LAWS@KL.SRI.COM>
ReSent-To: ailist@ai.ai.mit.edu
ReSent-Message-ID: <12397748084.22.LAWS@KL.SRI.COM>
here is my two bits on the free-will argument. it is highly speculative
not scientific. but with the debate being at its present level, i think
it will fit well with the rest.
1st METAQUESTION: why do people argue so vehemently about free will? not
only now in this list, but also through the centuries, free will has
been a touchy subject.
2nd METAQUESTION: why has AI been such a controversial subject, since it
became a possibly real possibility (around the mid-forties) ?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: if AI is possible, then it is possible to create
intelligence. all it takes is the know-how and the hardware. also, the
following inference is not farfetched: intelligence -> life. so if AI
is possible, it is possible to give life to a piece of hardware. no ghost
in the machine. no soul. call this the FRANKENSTEIN HYPOTHESIS, or, for
short, the FH (it's just a name, folks!).
this is where the action starts. there is a pessimistic interpretation
of FH and an optimistic interpretation of the FH. i suggest that the
AI opponents (broadly speaking, this would include people who claim
that the "hard" sciences and mathematics cannot capture the human
element) see the pessimistic interpretation and the AI proponents see
the optimistic interpretation. of course, in making these suggestions i
may be mistaken, especially since they are very broad generalizations.
i may also make lots of people on both sides angry.
what is the pessimistic interpretation? if there is no ghost in the
machine, when the machine breaks down, the intelligence disappears.
DEATH. if this holds for an AI, it is not unlikely that it holds
for Natural Intelligence as well. in short, it is a threatening
suggestion: when we die we die and nothing is left of us. no
afterlife. no reincarnation. nothing. just death. very frightening
for most of us. that is why we need to claim some special status
for humans, claim that we are different from a machine. here is
where free will comes in very handy.
now for the optimistic interpretation. the intelligence does not
really reside in the hardware. it could in fact be, to a very great
extent, independent of any type of specific hardware, and certainly
is independent from any specific instance of the hardware. the intelli-
gence really resides in the information that was used to "construct"
the hardware. this suggests the following program for AI:
(1) create AI.
(2) (before or after (1)?) map the correspondence between the hardware
and the AI ( = reasoning, memories, emotions etc.).
(3) same as (2) but for a Natural Intelligence. get the blueprints for
(say) a human intelligence.
(4) implement the blueprints of (3) on some kind of hardware.
Step (4) gives us virtual immortality, since whenever our current
intelligence-carrying hardware (human body? computer? etc.) is about to
give up (because of a disease, old age ...) we can transfer the
intelligence to another piece of hardware. there are some more delicate
problems here, but you get the idea.
(PLEASE NOTE: i, personally am not saying that this program can be
carried out. neither am i saying it cannot be carried out. i am not saying
that this is what AI researchers are striving for. i am simply
SPECULATING that it may be the motivation that resides in some dark,
unexplored Freudian corner of their mind.)
and so, gentle readers, this might be the explanation why people
get so heated up when they discuss free will and AI. just speculating,
of course.
Thanasis Kehagias