We have discussed so much about artificial intelligence this semester. We have discussed advanced technology in films, novels those films are adapted from, AI’s application in real life, its advantages, and damage it has on humanity.

One thing that does not seem to get mentioned a lot whether on internet or in our class is the philosophical analysis of AI. For me, it is conflicted, because it is hard to connect – philosophy and AI – when one is highly theoretical and the other requires too much real-life practice.

However, AI is not a simple technology, but a complicated one that challenges our understanding of consciousness, free will, and the essence of humanity, which are topics frequently discussed by philosophers. Therefore, it is important to see AI through the lens of philosophy.

René Descartes is a good match.

René Descartes : French philosopher, scientist, and mathematician. Often been called the father of modern philosophy. Philosophical ideas including Cartesian doubt, cogitation (thought), mind-body dualism, etc.

Descartes has a method of doubt. The most famous saying by him is the one involving cogito, “I think, therefore I am.” We can doubt a lot of things, but we cannot doubt that we think, because doubting itself is a form of thinking, and it is also impossible to doubt one’s own existence, because it is the “I”, that is doubting.

How does his ideas relate to AI? Here are two articles that address this topic briefly:

https://medium.com/@amjad33683/descartes-and-ai-exploring-the-philosophy-of-artificial-intelligence-ef492ebe8ed2

https://www.thecollector.com/philosophy-of-artificial-intelligence-descartes-turing

While reading these, another interesting concept that relates to Turing test caught my eye, so I want to post that as well: The Chinese Room Theory (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/):

Concept by American philosopher John Searle to demonstrate that a mind or consciousness for computer could not be realized.

Searle imagines himself alone in a room following a computer program for responding to Chinese characters slipped under the door. Searle understands nothing of Chinese, and yet, by following the program for manipulating symbols and numerals just as a computer does, he sends appropriate strings of Chinese characters back out under the door, and this leads those outside to mistakenly suppose there is a Chinese speaker in the room.

The narrow conclusion of the argument is that programming a digital computer may make it appear to understand language but could not produce real understanding. Hence the “Turing Test” is inadequate. Searle argues that the thought experiment underscores the fact that computers merely use syntactic rules to manipulate symbol strings, but have no understanding of meaning or semantics. The broader conclusion of the argument is that the theory that human minds are computer-like computational or information processing systems is refuted. Instead minds must result from biological processes; computers can at best simulate these biological processes. 

A page on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room) also explains Searle’s understanding of what he called “Strong AI” (The appropriately programmed computer with the right inputs and outputs would thereby have a mind in exactly the same sense human beings have minds), under the title “Strong AI as computationalism or functionalism”.


Comments

One response to “Philosophy and AI”

  1. Andrea Hidalgo Avatar
    Andrea Hidalgo

    Wenxin,

    You brought up so many important questions and reflections about AI and how it relates to existential philosophy. It’s truly fascinating how AI can prompt us to dig deep into ourselves, even though sometimes it feels too utilitarian to really connect with on a personal and introspective level. I understand what you mean about Descartes and other philosophers, in that their theories seem to clash with the complexity of AI. It’s challenging when something so abstract and integral to our society feels distant from our own selves and the philosophical works that investigate how our consciousness works. AI doesn’t define us completely, but its integration into our daily lives certainly warrants a deeper engagement with these technologies—especially now when they are becoming increasingly prevalent.

    In addition to your thoughtful post, I wanted to introduce ideas from Jean Baudrillard, a French sociologist and philosopher, whose writing I feel offers a meta perspective on your reflections. He dedicated most of his life towards investigating the sociopolitical implications of postmodernism and our interpretations of reality. His critiques, alongside Descartes’, navigates existential questions that relate to society’s use of technology. Baudrillard (who reminds me of Robert California from The Office) is known for his paradoxical and extremely hyperbolic views; he argued that the simulation of human-like intelligence by AI might contribute to a societal loss of meaning—given that technology blurs the lines between reality and simulation, as we have come to understand in our course materials this semester.

    In his 1990 essay, “The Transparency of Evil”, Baudrillard adopts a technological deterministic approach similar to that of Marshall McLuhan—a film/media theorist we’re probably all familiar with by now. He suggests that humans create intelligent machines either due to a sense of despair over their own intelligence or to alleviate the burden of what he terms a “monstrous intelligence”—for example: overconsumption and production in a consumerist society. By transferring this burden to AI, humans avoid the responsibility of knowledge—much like how politicians and influential figures relieve us of personal ambitions for power. Thinking about it through his words was a pretty hard read since it highlights how we all, to some extent, suspend our thoughts to AI. However, it also serves as a reminder that AI is merely another tool that exploits us and tethers us to the capitalistic drives of Big Tech. This in turn inhibits our ability to engage with the world and ourselves in a way that is stripped of artifice.

    Linking our thoughts to current events, it’s quite ironic to note that Eric Schmidt, former Google CEO who has played significant roles in US foreign policy and the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI), has publicly voiced concerns about China’s AI ambitions while simultaneously exploring ties with their AI market. A report by Wired covers Schmidt’s emails hinting at his interest in engaging with China’s AI sector—such as his nonprofit foundation making investments in a fund associated with a private equity firm that backs Chinese tech companies. His cautionary statements about China’s AI-driven “autocratic” goals contradict his poorly hidden pursuits in the Chinese AI landscape where he sought opportunities during a trip in Beijing. Ultimately, conflicts of interest are nothing foreign to the AI industry and international affairs, but I thought of Baudrillard’s reflections on the paradoxes of globalization. As society becomes increasingly interconnected and moved by AI (despite competition over its control and its polarizing nature), Eric Schmidt’s contradictory actions regarding China’s AI sector reflect the complexities and harms of global capitalism.

    References:
    https://www.wired.com/story/eric-schmidt-china-ai-ties/?bxid=6609bc72d9dd17ee5705929a&cndid=76853490&esrc=MARTECH_ORDERFORM&source=Email_0_EDT_WIR_NEWSLETTER_0_DAILY_ZZ&utm_brand=wired&utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_content=WIR_Daily_041124&utm_mailing=WIR_Daily_041124&utm_medium=email&utm_source=nl&utm_term=WIR_Daily_Active
    https://uh.edu/~cfreelan/courses/1361/BaudrillardQuotes.html#:~:text=Jean%20Baudrillard%20has%20been%20referred,more%20definitive%20of%20the%20real
    https://medium.com/@jcgblue/is-baudrillard-the-prophet-of-ai-4c565a607bb6

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *