Implications of a Closed Universe

Does infinity actually exist, as something more than just a concept? If the universe is a closed, finite system (which is currently unknown) then it cannot. I believe mathematical concepts are not real and valid unless they can be expressed in a physical system. So, if we cannot have an infinite number of any 'thing,' then infinity is an invalid concept. There are no 'Platonic ideal forms.' Just because we can imagine something does not grant existence to that thing. I can imagine lots of things, like unicorns and flying pigs, but they aren't real.

So, if it turns out that we live in a finite universe, and infinity doesn't exist, then time is finite too. Time will eventually end and existence will cease, in a 'Big Crunch' or similar event. Would this provide a solution to the Halting Problem then? If there is an end of time, then no program or algorithm will run forever, so for all X, HALT(X, X) = TRUE.

I should probably file this under Ramblings...

Looking for a Few Good ‘Bots

Wired and National Defense Magazine report that M249 rifle-equipped combat robots have finally been deployed to operational units in Iraq. Known as SWORDS, these robots have been promised for some time now, and although there are no reports of actual combat use yet, are expected to eventually engage the enemy at close range with lethal force if necessary.

I’m slightly surprise that the mass media hasn’t picked up on this yet. It could easily generate a firestorm of controversy surrounding the “dehumanizing” of war and the ethical issues concerning armed robots.

via KurzweilAI.net, Slashdot and Defense Tech

Don't tell me I'm lost

Following up on my previous post regarding a flawed critique of AI published in MIT's Technology Review, I came across the blog of Larry Hardesty who makes some very good points revealing the poor logic behind the arguments of the original author.

Blind Impress - Uplift the bytecode!

Blind Impress - Gelernter Wrapup

Attack of the P-Zombies

Digg points us to a New York Times article about the increasing support for physicalism coming from our growing understanding of the material origin of thought. More and more research indicates that physical structures and processes in the brain are solely (no pun intended) responsible for the emergence of emotions, morality and consciousness, challenging the proponents of dualism who claim a distinction between mind and spirit.

A quote by Pope John Paul II in 1996 struck a chord with me; he said these materialistic ideas were "incompatible with the truth about man." Facts and evidence are incompatible with "the truth?" Sounds like something Galileo would hear...

We’re not lost, we just need a map...

MIT’s Technology Review has an article written by a Yale Computer Science Professor who is awfully pessimistic about the possibility of creating a conscious artificial intelligence. It seems to me, however, that his arguments against conscious AI are grounded in our inability to achieve success in the past 50 years and classical notions of subjective experience. But if the Wright Brothers had been deterred by previous failures they would have never built their flying machine, and if Magellan were bound to ancient concepts of a flat earth he would have never circumnavigated the globe.

Professor Gelernter frames the discussion around the differences between what he describes as "a ‘simulated conscious mind’ versus a ‘simulated unconscious intelligence’" and the mysterious "stuff" that makes us human. The professor has a special distaste for "conscious" AIs. He makes unsupported assertions that consciousness cannot be reproduced in software, simply because he believes this to be so. These arguments remind me of those of John Searle and others who contend that conscious AI is impossible because it is utterly inconceivable italic to them italic. The language of these philosophical arguments is often heavily-weighted with emotional triggers and sentimental definitions, rather than the cold, empirical judgment of hard science. Yet we can use the same philosophy to defend our science. I demonstrated the fallacy of many of these arguments (or at least attempted to do so) in my undergraduate honors thesis, "In Defense of Artificial Intelligence." Indeed, Gelernter points to Searle’s famous "Chinese Room" rebuttal to the Turing Test, which is addressed at length in my aforementioned thesis.

He also lumps emotions together with consciousness, and claims that since a machine cannot have emotions or a ‘sense of beauty,’ it therefore cannot have an ‘inner mental life’ or consciousness. Despite the fact that it has not been determined that emotions cannot be duplicated with software, it is not difficult whatsoever to envision a fully-conscious artificial intelligence completely devoid of emotional sensation. Indeed, sci-fi writers have had much success creating believable stories of conscious robots with no emotions at all. Although many AI researchers hope to recreate human intelligence, it is not the only conceivable model for intelligence. We may one day encounter a form of extraterrestrial intelligence completely unlike our own, but if it acts conscious, we will describe it as such.

The author ties the possibility of conscious AI to the performance of digital computers. He claims that consciousness is one of the many incomputable problems of the universe. This may be the case, but our present definition of computability may be as incomplete as our knowledge of that universe. Perhaps in the future we will build non-digital computers that are not bound by these limitations. This is another example of using current shortcomings to predict future failures.

Furthermore, how could an objective observer discern the difference between a ‘simulated conscious mind’ and a ‘simulated unconscious intelligence’? If consciousness is subjective, and one has no method of observing the subjective experience of another entity, then it is impossible to determine whether or not a given individual possesses a subjective conscious experience. The only method of observation available would be based on behavior, and if the behavior of a given system is indistinguishable from that of a conscious entity, then we have no other logical option but to ascribe consciousness to that system. We cannot know with certainty whether our fellow human beings possess the same type of consciousness we experience, but since we can observe that their behaviors are consistent with how we believe a conscious being would act, we do not hesitate to assign the attribute of consciousness. AI should be judged by the same standard.

The reason we’ve failed at using our biological brains as the model for AI development is precisely because we have very little understand of how our minds actually work. If you don’t know how something operates, its awfully difficult to recreate it. This does not, as Professor Gelernter suggests, imply an insurmountable technological hurdle, but merely a contemporary inability to implement our ideas. History is filled with examples of insufficient knowledge causing temporary roadblocks to progress, which are later overcome via persistent, hard work and breakthroughs.

Again, past failures are not good predictors of future results and traditional wisdom is often wrong.

AI as a Moral Agent

The Ottawa Citizen takes a closer look at the ideology behind South Korea's initiative to draw up ethical guidelines to govern intelligent machines (as previously covered here). The article predictably examines the influence of Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics, but also dismisses the "hype" surrounding the proposals as much ado about nothing. The author correctly points out the weaknesses in the Three Laws, as relating to military and sentry applications of robotics. However, despite describing himself as an optimistic Luddite, he betrays an anthropocentric egoism that human intelligence will never be surpassed, therefore, these proposed guidelines will ultimately serve no purpose.

Emotion a Prerequisite for Thought?

A group of scholars gathering at Harvard to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the “cognitive revolution,” are promoting the idea that understanding human emotion is absolutely essential to understanding human thought. The scholars go on to argue that the reason all attempts to recreate human thought in AI have failed up to this point is because AI researchers have ignored the role played by emotion in intelligence. While it is true that emotion is central to human thought, it’s awfully anthropocentric to claim the human model as the only path to intelligence.

Although minds and computers may not be completely analogous, to say that emotion is this missing link to artificial general intelligence seems rather naïve and simplistic. There is much work to be done before we can even come close to developing strong AI, and it is quite easy to imagine thinking machines completely devoid of emotion. Intentionality may perhaps be integral to any intelligent system, and emotion may be deeply-seated in human intentionality, but any number of goal-oriented schemes could be devised to replace emotion as the driving force behind an intelligent machine.

When Will It End?

Yet another article has appeared in a British newspaper forecasting the dire consequences of AI as a result of a recent public debate at the London Science Media Centre. The Daily Mail chimes in again, repeating most of what's previously been covered, with concerns that robotic caregivers could "dehumanise" patients, and citing an uneasy relationship with technology.

One ray of coherent thought shined through, however, as it was revealed that the original intent of the debate was for scientists to dispute the "silly report" on robot rights released by the UK Department of Trade and Industry. Unfortunately, all of the media outlets covering the debate chose instead to focus on vague worries of out-of-control robots running amuck. Gotta sell papers I suppose...

Here's a gem from this latest article:

I certainly wouldn't want to be a British squaddie on the sands of Iraq with robot-controlled American gunships patrolling overhead.

Umm...too late?

More Fear Mongering over Robots in UK

Now it seems the “West Britons” are jumping on the bandwagon, with the Belfast Telegraph being the latest UK media outlet to spread FUD about the coming robotic menace. The article has a decent layman’s overview of the current state of robotics, but can’t avoid inciting worry over the increasing use of military robots, “robot rights,” and robots replacing humans providing care for children and the elderly.

It doesn’t get much more ominous than this:

So are these machines a threat?

Yes...

Sounds like those scientists at the London Science Media Centre really frightened the journalists in attendance...or perhaps the less-than tech-savvy reporters misunderstood much of the discussion and wrote sensational articles in order to attract readers.

More coverage of this debate:
Artificial Minds: British Wary of AI
Artificial Minds: Robo-FUD from the BBC

I just wish I could get my hands on some transcripts or other source material from the actual event to see for myself what really went on...

British Wary of AI

More doom & gloom from the UK as a result of a "forward-looking" debate on robot ethics at the London Science Media Centre.

The Financial Times is concerned that robots designed for urban warfare could be misused for policing purposes. The Daily Mail fears robots making wrong decisions and warns of vague "consequences." To me these seem more to be matters of posse comitatus and accountability rather than cultural issues exclusively pertaining to AI.

The old saying "We fear that which we do not understand" rings awfully true...

Robo-FUD from the BBC

The BBC generally has much better articles about AI than their latest piece about the questions posed by autonomous robots. Plenty of misplaced fear-mongering about the coming distopia with machine enslaving man, sprinkled with a bit of socialist concern for robots' rights to health care.

A single quote captures my feelings about this article rather succinctly:

"It's poorly informed, poorly supported by science and it is sensationalist," said Professor Owen Holland of the University of Essex.

The author is concerned with determining who to blame should an autonomous military robot kill someone in error. The proper answer, of course, would be the operator and/or chain of command, as appropriate. Additionally, just like any bit of military hardware, the defense contractor should also be investigated, and similar models inspected and re-tested.

Robotic rights are also addressed in this article, and again, another quote from a professor is needed to steer the discussion in the right direction:

"The more pressing and serious problem is the extent to which society is prepared to trust autonomous robots and entrust others into the care of autonomous robots."

We have a long way to go to counter Hollywood's negative portrayal of robots & AI, and it seems to me that most reporters are only interested in playing off of and propagating these sentiments. Certainly, there needs to be "informed debate" in order to give careful consideration about safeguards regarding human-machine interaction, but vacuous drivel such as this is not a good start.

An Artificial Conscience for Artificial Warriors

The Economist has more on the U.S. military's attempt to build an ethical decision-making framework for autonomous weapon systems. This particular initiative seeks to map out all possible actions & outcomes in order to select the most appropriate or "ethical" behavior. It sounds a bit like Deep Blue's brute force calculation of all possible moves & consequences, however, the decision space of a battlefield is slightly more complex than a chessboard...to say the least.

Let the machines target machines - not people?

Not to be outdone by her allies, the US military has decided to draft some proposals regarding the proper use of robots and other autonomous systems in combat. The basic idea of the guidelines suggested by the Naval Surface Warfare Center is that machines should be allowed to freely engage other unmanned systems and weapons, but must require human interaction for permission to fire on enemy personnel manned systems. The researchers point to precedence of this concept in the automatic engaging protocols of the Patriot Missile Battery, Aegis Auto Special "hands-off" mode, and the Phalanx ship defense system.

An interesting suggestion, but it puts an awful lot of reliance on the autonomous systems' abilities to discriminate and positively identify the enemy, leaving allies unharmed. Many video game developers can't even get simple collision detection working. So while this may be an easier pill to swallow for those who criticize the "de-humanization" of warfare (giving lethal decision authority to a machine), those folks will be the loudest to complain as soon as the first error leads to a friendly fire incident. And, of course, all bets are off as soon as we face a symmetric adversary who's systems are not bound by these same guidelines. Overly-restrictive rules of engagement created by lawyers and politicians in the "ivory tower" can be quite the disadvantage for soldiers at the front lines in a shooting war.

(via Slashdot)

Laws to Govern Robots and AI

Several nations are proposing early legislation aimed at protecting the rights of humans and robots should AI researchers successfully produce sentient, conscious machines.

As part of a future-looking series of papers commissioned by the UK Office of Science and Innovation's Horizon Scanning Centre, developments over the next 50 years could lead to robots demanding the same rights as human beings. The study suggests that machines might be granted the both the rights & responsibilites of all Her Majesty's subjects, including voting, taxes, and military service.

South Korea is drafting an ethical code to regulate interaction between humans and robots. The rules are expected to set guidelines for robotic surgery, household servants, and human-robot "relationships." (via Slashdot)

The Government of Japan is also following suit, although its efforts appear to be mired in committee gibberish and red tape. Fears of conflict between man and machine, and civil servants seeking to avoid liability, seem to be the driving forces behind the draft proposal. Unlike the straightforward language of Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics, the Japanese rulebook contains wonderful bureaucratic poetry such as:

Risk shall be defined as a combination of the occurrence rate of danger and the actual level of danger. Risk estimation involves estimating the potential level of danger and evaluating the potential sources of danger. Therefore total risk is defined as the danger of use of robots and potential sources of danger.

Sounds like bloatware to me...

Darwinian Survival Machines or Anatman?

USNews.com has a lengthy article exploring the soul’s role in human consciousness which has some interesting implications for machine consciousness as well.

The article spans a variety of subjects from psychology to philosophy, and the most interesting passage is in the midst of a discussion about the neurophysical processes behind consciousness and language with philosopher Daniel Dennett:

"This is what I've meant over the years when I've said that the brain is a syntactic engine mimicking a semantic engine." By that, Dennett presumably means that consciousness produces orderly, grammatical representations of something out there in the world that is meaningful, but it does not create meaning. It is not necessary to meaning.

This argument rejects the notion that a Turing machine is not actually conscious since it merely mimics the understanding of language by suggesting that this mechanical procedure is the only system at work within the human mind. By reducing the physical processes in the brain down to their fundamental components, we see that they are no more remarkable than the internal workings of a digital computer. Critics of AI argue that machines & algorithms cannot be conscious since we can observe precisely how they reproduce human behavior. Perhaps once human behavior itself is de-mystified to the point where our consciousness is understood completely, these people will be willing to apply the label of conscious thought more broadly.

via KurzweilAI.net

A Formal Framework for Conceptual-Level Cognition Based on Objectivist Epistemology

I've been doing a lot of research into Objectivist Philosophy lately, and its given me a lot to think about. I've studied philosophy pretty intensely over the past 5 years (including a year at Oxford), and I don't understand how this could have escaped my attention for so long. I think I may have finally found something that encompasses most of the conclusions I've arrived at regarding reality and the existence. If you want to understand my personal view of the universe, Objectivism is unquestionably the perfect place to start. This website, however, is not a 'philosophy blog,' so I will quickly move along to my point.

One component of this philosophy, namely Objectivist Epistemology (the nature of knowledge), has led me to an idea for an internal conceptual model of a conscious machine. This system of knowledge representation would closely mirror the Objectivist structure of concepts and instances. Simply put, Objectivism contends that the senses are the only source of valid information, that 'reasoning' is nothing more than the classification & organization of the information provided by sensory perception, and that consciousness is the act of transforming that information into a system of concepts and propositions consisting of knowledge about the world. A conscious mind creates concepts by identifying and generalizing similar characteristics of things it encounters through the senses. Once a concept has been formed, an unlimited number of instances of that concept can be recognized by the agent.

This framework immediately reminded me of object-oriented programming, with concepts acting as classes and instances as objects. Just as a programmer can construct an unlimited number of objects once its class has been defined, a conscious mind can recognize endless instances of 'airplane' once the concept of 'airplane' has been properly formulated. The key is to identify the relevant characteristics that define the concept (man-made machine, has wings, enables flight), and to recognize those characteristics in similar phenomena.

We could implement this framework in a machine using these steps:

1. Define the machine's sensory perception. How will it observe the world? Will it have eyes? ears? tactile sensors? The limits of its perception will directly affect the scope of the machine's conceptualization.

2. Construct the mechanisms for input/output. Connect the cameras and microphones that serve as eyes and ears, and provide the machine with some method to interact with or otherwise manipulate its environment.

3. Formulate the aforementioned conceptual framework. Write the software that controls the operation of these devices, analyses the data they collect, and classifies & organizes the information accordingly.

4. Release into the environment. Allow the machine to observe and interact with its surroundings, building concepts and collecting knowledge about whatever it can discover.

For example, a machine designed with these capabilities might one day encounter what we would recognize as an 'airplane.' First, the machine would compare this object to its memory files to see if it had encountered something similar before. Failing that, it would make note of the distinguishing characteristics of the object and assign it an arbitrary identifier. Later on, when confronted with another instance of an 'airplane,' the machine would recognize distinct similarities between this object and the unidentified one in its memory, and would construct a concept of 'airplane' based on the obvious relationships between them.

This framework doesn't solve some of the major challenges of artificial intelligence like pattern recognition, machine vision or natural language understanding, but it does provide us with a system to integrate these systems once they are accomplished. And it wouldn't do much good starting from scratch. This agent would require some background information, a 'seed of knowledge' if you will, in order to get up and running. Even if this included things as (relatively) simple as language skills or a basic means of communication, designers will need to provide the machine with a small amount of starting information in order to 'prime the pump.' Humans are born with many 'instincts;' artificial minds like these must be programmed with them. Additionally, we will need to sort out the details surrounding memory access and storage requirements for this agent to function efficiently. An intelligent system which maintains a full audiovisual record of its experiences would likely be impractical, so perhaps this is where some contextually-relevant summary software would be useful.

Ethics & Artificial Intelligence

Right now I'm listening to a very interesting radio talk show about the IBM 'Blue Brain' Project and the ethics of creating a conscious machine.

You can listen to the RealAudio stream here.