Artificial Intelligence-A Case for Agnosticism.

32 Pages·2007·0.76 MB·English

7
DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 069 296
LI 003 962
AUTHOR
Larry H.
Chandrasekakan, B.; Reeker,
TITLE
Artificial Intelli ence - A
Case for Agnosticism.
INSTITUTION
Computer and Information
Ohio State Univ..,
olumbus.
Science Researbh C nter.
i
REPORT NO
OSU -C ISRC -TR- 72 -9
PUB DATE
Aug 72
30p.;(13 References)
NOTE
(
EDRS PRICE
MF-30.65 HC -$3.29
DESCRIPTORS
*Artificial Intelligence; Computer Programs;
*Computers; *C
puter Science; Information
Processing;
Linguistics; Machine
*Intelligence;
Translation
ABSTRACT
Almost all'of the
ublished work on the philosophical
question of mechanical intelligen e has argued in favor of one or the
other of the polarities of possfb e,positions. It i$ however possible
to take a position between these two extremes, those of the True
Believer' and the Infidel. While this agnostic position is not a
strong position in the sense of hiving a good many logically
compelling arguments in its 'favor, it gains its viability by virtue
of the weaknesses in the po ar alternatives. Although agnosticism
concerning the possibility
f artificial intelligende is believed to
be a position held by many
omputer scientists, there has been no
attempt to present this pos tion in the literature. In an attempt to
rerdedy the situaonc this
eport presents the agnceticl.s position
regarding
inte
gence..(Author/NH)
artifikitial
./
Pt
L
,
U.S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.
EDUCATIONS WELFARE
OFFICE OF EDUCATION
THIS DOCUMENT HAS SEEN REPRO.
DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM
THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIG.
.(0SU-CISRC-TR-72-9)
MATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPIN.
-r
IONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY
REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDU-
8
CATION POSITION OR POUCY
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
-
A CASE FOR AGNOSTICISM
hby
B. Chandrasekaran and !carry H. Reeker
r
%
The CompUterand
Inf4iation
Scien0e Research Center
The Ohio State University
44210
Columbus ,1:1Aio
.
.
.August 1972
4,
FILMED FROM BEST AVAILABLE
COPY
1
PREFACE
The Computer and Information Science Research tenter of The Ohio
State University is an interdisciplinary research orgpnization which
consists of the staff, graduate students, and faculty of
many University
departments and laboratories.
This report is. based on research accom-.
plished in the Department of Computer and InfOrumtion Science.
V
r.
4
;
°Or
c
co& .
0
2
I.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE - A 'CASE FOR AGNOSTICISM
B. Chandtasekaran.and Larry H. Reeker
\
t
ellineme
Charlie Brown:
S1o,p
wishy-washy. -I don't` like' it
Lucy
Oh, yeh?
O.K., tell me, can Machines think?
.
.
.Charlie Brown:
Well, er, let me'see; on the one hand, but
...
Lucy
Wishy-washyt
1
0
1
1
. .
.
vq.i
'-'
;.!.
.ii
-
-
1
.
-Ni
.
)
i
A.preliminariver ion of this paper-Vas preqgnxed at
a special
,
session on "The P ssikilities and Limitation*. of Artificial. intern-
1
.gence", during the 1911 IEEE Systeis, Man, and Cybernetics Conference
..,
, in Anaheii
California, October, 19/1
5'.
.1
N
\
Agnosticism, whether in the matter of existence of God or in the matter
.
1
has an aura of excessive caution - the
of computer simulation of the mind
a
Is there
The juxtaposition:
very opposite of bold staking out of'positions.
Is the mind a machine? is interesting for another reason -' a soy of
a God?
empirical semi -decida ility that they share.
The question about God Could pre-
the affirmative by any.given injlividual to whom He
sumably.be answered i
Likewise, a. person's doubts about ro-
chose to provide sufficient evidence..
bots would probably vanish if.his best friend, about whom no suspicion had
The point is that it
crossed his brow, turned out to be a clever artifact.
is possible to conceive of direct, evidence in favor of the existence of GOd
and man-machine equivalence, and difficult to imagine such direct evidence
which would Compel belief in atheism or in the impossibility of machines ever
being built to simulate Min in all his complexity.
ither case at.
very good in
The prospects for direct evidence are
not,
4
In the matter of mechanical simulation of the human mind the in-
this time.
some computer pfograss
direct evidence that we presently have consists of:
3
which purport to show some of Vie performance characterist'ics of the'mind,
eN
arguments attempting tb show the implausibility of a machine ever being de-
signed fulfilling said purpdse, arguments setting forth the likelihood of
succeeding in the enterprise of robot - building, and a mass ofdata on the
human mind itself.
.
Almost all of the published work'on the philosophical question of the
limitations of mechanical intelligence has argued in .favor of one or the other
of the polarities of possible positions;
It is however possible to take a
.
positidh betWeen these two extremes; thoie of the True Believer and the.Infidel.
2.
J,
-
of having
While this agnostic position is not a strong position in the.sense
(this seems to be a
a good many logically compelling arguments in its favor
of the
'feature of agnosticism in general), it gaint its viability by virtue
We believe agnosticism concerning the
weaknesses in the polar alternatives.
possibility of artificial intelligence to be a position heldby many computer
/
in'the
Yet there has been no attempt to present the position
scientists.
This we attempt tokremedy below.
literature.
.
corner, possibly about to fail, is causing
[The computer room. a light
characters are
the computer to cast an intermittent Zong shadow' in which
standing and talking about "intelligent machines.]
I see that they are holding another compu er:chess tourna-
'True Believer:
.Why, scoffers once claimed that machines wo bd never p ay a
ment:
Zy sophisticated
decent'game of chess, but we now haVe some remarik
programs.
I doubt that they'll soon be' international gr d masters; but
Infidel:
then, that's beside the point any0ay.
oni
a matter of
True Believer:
It certainly is!
Why,
deli
gree whether they are good beginning plaT3ers or randMasters.
The
programs are being improved regularly. excellent end
They pZ
frames andostandard openings, and their Zook-ahe d capabilities are...
.
.
.
Infidel: (interrupting]: EXcuse
my interruption; but you still are
missing the point:
even if they become grhndmdstera, they are
II
.4
4
wha:
should
machines being
some
arzl
People' like you are always .talking as
intelligent designer.
if machines can think, when you don't even know what is meant.
by "tiiink."
As a matter of fact, it is not necessary to worry
True, Believer:
Turing's tesi,4 the "Imi-
about the definition..of "think."
tation Game," is asgood an. operational definition' as you
It is going to be mighty difficult for anyone
might need.
which passes Turing's test
has
to deny that a machine
captured the -essence of 'thinking.
..
Infidel:
Certainly any one who thinks can do more than play games,
be they ches's or "imitation games."
As an exercise in pro-
gramming fireworks, Turing's test may be something to wotk
towards; but as for "capturing the essence of thinking,'" I
think it is presumptuous.
"think,"1
Unless somebody defines
I think it is unrealistic of you people...
'r--
[interrupting]:
You challenge a pod 'operational
True Believer:
definition ir2 favor of some puddle-headed intuitiari:
"[Shouting,
It's people. Zike you who jeered at
and beginning to flush]
the steamboat)
do there always have to be a bunch of Neandir...
Why,
4st
Agtiostic [joining the two and interrupting]: flop no; :fellows,
Zet us
I can understand the. vipw that the imitation
not come to blows.
call`'
game does not embody every kind pf activity that -one.might
Turing evaded that problem by sayi
"The
"thinking."
.
.st
'can machinesthink?' is takAedningless
ori4inal question,
Still,, the imitation game is not a.
to deserve dilussion."
If a machine were to pass -that test, it would
trivial test.
be.evidence.that it is possible to buiZd into a machine con-
s
siderable mastery over language use, a capability to make
sophisticated inferences and deductions, a certain cunning, etc..,
all
evidences of intelligence if displayed by a human.
-
Even
Look at language behavior, for one area.
True Believer:
Yes!
a very simple pmgram, must capture certain
ELIZ4t5 which is
since it can manage tar make some
aspects of human language
'
people, angry when they work' with it, just as they would get
angry at a person whO was answering back imperinently.
Agnostic:Bold it!
I would prefer to say ",just as they would get
angry at a candy machine which was refusing to yield its candy."
For my point is well illustrated 4y machines which "use natural
. language,fleand that point is thatIELIZA is more closely anal-
agous.to a candy machines than to a human ,for even, quite pos-
I
sibly, to a chimpangee) in its real knowledge of language.
think One must insist that what the machine captures' is not
some
purely superficial. aspect -of some type of behavior taken
,4
to be indicative orthoughi.
But Zet us return to the imitation
I
game.
have my own reasons for considei.ing the imitation game
.1
.
.a poor operational definition.
..
5.
.
.
rkar?
While Turing's test provides us with a standard, or cri-
Agncs::::c:
terion, for a thinking machine, are we any nearer to designing
than we would be without the test?
intelligent machines
What
jusea criterion for thinking; what
is needed is mare th
those of us who are interested in building "intelligent" programs
are Lacking is a knowledge of what specific capabilities.we
.
should build in.
1,1.*
V
True Belie0Or:
to want is a recipe, something like a
What y
0
;
generative
finition of thinking.
Infidel:
What if# thinking was just not satisfactorily definable in this
sense, in principle?
There are some very important mathematical
objects that have this pioperty, you know.
Take for-instance, the
Set of total recursive functions.
Such functions are common
enough objects; yet if you try to give a recipe for producing
them, you can always find one that's not produced by that. recipe..
'True Believer: What you.are saying is very similar to the hopes
some
of you, were nurturing a while ago about how GUdel's theorem was
01424 to resulipeCt.what'yoU like to'can sn's dignity" from the
clutches Of us mechanists.
Sure there are limitations to machines,
i
.
but as Putnam6 and Benacerraf7 and possibly others hay; indicated,
there is no evidence that humans do not po
ess similar
Jimitationa.
Granted, there i =
no recipe to produce' all of.the
4
I'
ip,
drions.
But you baue.yet to convince metRat
total recursive
ct
.(
the attributes of "thought" form a productive set.
I agree that it is futile to 'look toOdel's theorem for
Agnostic:
proof that the mind is not a machine.8 But the point about
the difficulty in obtaining a recipe is not so easily dismissed.
For example, as Gel himself
The problem is an acute design problem.
involved
as pointed out, very little is) known about the processes
.
in the human ability to come up with more and more precise
distinctions
eadied.for instance, in stronger' and stronger
as
In order to understand the
set theoretic axioms of infinity.
"mechanisms" involved,,)e says, a major advance in the foundations
of mathematics is needed.
Surely at this .stage it is unrea-
sonable to insist that "thinking" machines are 'just around
One might as well claim
the corner."
that the ultimate
advances in the foundations of mathematics is imminent.
*
We excldde from consideration arguments.%7hich
Mind a machine?
Is
nr similar essentially revealed
involve appeal to'religious convictions
Among the mulbiplicitof possible posi-
knowledge of the nature of Man.
tions, the most interesting ate:
10
The mind is not a formal systamf
and although one might be
'1.
table to'program some 'superficial aspects ofrbehavior, the
really important and significant aspects of intelligence - the
canno t be captured in a formal
ones that stamp us. "human" -
sy stem.
7.
"t