A major approach to the ethics of artificial intelligence is to use social choice, in which the AI is designed to act according to the aggregate views of society. This is found in the AI ethics of “coherent extrapolated volition” and “bottom–up ethics”. This paper shows that the normative basis of AI social choice ethics is weak due to the fact that there is no one single aggregate ethical view of society. Instead, the design of social choice AI faces (...) three sets of decisions: standing, concerning whose ethics views are included; measurement, concerning how their views are identified; and aggregation, concerning how individual views are combined to a single view that will guide AI behavior. These decisions must be made up front in the initial AI design—designers cannot “let the AI figure it out”. Each set of decisions poses difficult ethical dilemmas with major consequences for AI behavior, with some decision options yielding pathological or even catastrophic results. Furthermore, non-social choice ethics face similar issues, such as whether to count future generations or the AI itself. These issues can be more important than the question of whether or not to use social choice ethics. Attention should focus on these issues, not on social choice. (shrink)

Este artículo explora la integración de la IA en la comunicación académica para mejorar las capacidades cognitivas humanas. La concepción de la comunicación hombre-máquina (CMM), que considera las tecnologías basadas en la IA no como objetos interactivos, sino como sujetos comunicativos, plantea cuestiones más filosóficas en la comunicación académica. Es un hecho conocido que existe una mayor interacción entre los humanos y las máquinas, especialmente consolidada por la pandemia COVID-19, que intensificó el desarrollo del Sistema de Aprendizaje Adaptativo Individual, por (...) lo que necesariamente se requieren aportaciones de las IN para fortalecer la IA. Esto posicionó a la universidad en la yuxtaposición de asegurar la producción de individuos altamente talentosos que puedan continuar pensando más allá de lo pensable inteligentemente y permitir a los expertos en IA continuar construyendo algoritmos que puedan llevar el desarrollo de la tecnología al siguiente nivel. Para llevar a cabo tal tarea, la producción investigadora es primordial para conectar la universidad y la industria editorial. Este artículo examina de forma crítica componentes importantes e intenta hacer justicia a la emanación de preguntas críticas de los investigadores (NI), alimentando así el desarrollo de la tecnología (IA). (shrink)

Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence will be the twenty-first century logic development of the main power source, and in the twenty-first century will largely determine the face of logic. At least in the early twenty-first century, logic will focus on the following topics: how to deal with common sense reasoning in the logic of Eph coordination, non-monotonic and fault tolerance factors? how to make robots with human intelligence and creativity, as established from the empirical evidence used to guide future (...) action in the induction of judgments can be wrong? how the knowledge representation and knowledge reasoning, in particular, is based on the existing knowledge base and between the cognitive subject knowledge and the reasoning? how contextual factors, combined with a variety of natural language understanding and reasoning, so that intelligent robots to employing natural language for successful communication with people? . . . . And so on. (shrink)

У статті досліджується специфіка взаємозв’язку релігії, культури та штучного інтелекту (ШІ) у постмодерністському контексті сучасності. У цьому розумінні віртуалізація та штучний інтелект стають не просто інструментами, але й новим способом осмислення світу – вони кидають виклик традиційним уявленням про релігію, культуру, знання, істину й ідентичність. Автори закликають до осягнення можливих шляхів розвитку релігії та культури в постмодерному контексті та до пошуку гармонії між реальним і віртуальним, між традиційним та новаторським, між людським і штучним.

이 논문은 인공지능의 존재론적 지위를 평가하기 위한 두 개의 물음을 던진다. 하나는 인공지능이 개념을 가질 수 있는가 하는 물음이고, 다른 하나는 인공지능이 행위의 능력을 가졌는가 하는 물음이다. 개념 능력은 인공지능이 통상적인 언어의 형태로 주어지는 명령이나 정보를 능동적으로 이해하고 그것의 작동에 반영할 수 있기 위한 필요조건이다. 최근 인공지능 기술은 영상자료에서 비지도 학습의 방식으로 특정 범주의 사물을 식별해내는 성과를 거뒀지만, 이런 식별의 능력은 개념 능력의 필요조건도 충분조건도 아니다. 인공지능이 우리와 같은 개념을 가지도록 하는 것은 인간 사회의 언어 관행을 고스란히 학습시키는 방식으로 가능할 (...) 것인데, 이것은 불가능하지는 않지만 사실상 완결되기 어려운 목표다. 한편, 행위 능력에 대한 평가는 인공지능 프로그램이나 지능형 로봇 같은 인공물을 모종의 책임과 권리를 지닌 행위 주체로 간주할 수 있는가 하는 물음을 다루기 위한 열쇠다. 행위는 행위 주체와 환경 간의 상호작용으로, 행위의 실현에는 환경 속 대상에 대한 지각과 그것에 관한 동작의 협응, 달리 말하자면 감수자 체계와 행위자 체계의 통합이 필수적이다. 그리고 이러한 협응이나 통합의 배후에는 행위를 낳는 의도를 가지고 협응을 조율하는 존재, 즉 자아가 있다. 행위는 감수자 체계와 행위자 체계의 협응을 통해 자아의 의도를 실현하는 과정이다. 인공물의 작동이 이런 조건을 충족한다고 볼 이유는 아직 없다. 결국, 두 물음에 대한 이 논문의 대답은 부정적이거나 기껏해야 유보적이다. (shrink)

This article will focus on issues concerning the provision of artificial nutrition and hydration to patients who are extremely old, completely bedridden, and totally dependent on others. These patients have no advance directives, no malignancy, suffer from persistent but unstable disturbance of consciousness as well as severe cognitive impairment, and cannot eat sufficient amounts of food to maintain their lives. Should ANH be provided? Some would agree while others would maintain otherwise. The underlying values and normative theory behind each (...) argument are quite different. In this paper, I will present opinions, comments, and arguments concerning the provision of PANH to such patients and examine each using the Takahashi‘s three levels structure analysis. Utilitarianism is a fitting ethical theory for the third level in arguments against the provision of PANH to patients in question, and the non-religious sanctity of life doctrine covers the opposite position. (shrink)

The first part of this paper contextualizes the debate on the ethical regulation of Artificial Intelligence, and then reviews the main Anglo-Eurocentric elements of public initiatives about the ‘Ethics of AI’ that have recently emerged. All this with the ultimate purpose of analyzing the basis of principlism of the Ethics of AI. We refer to this with the specific purpose of presenting it in terms of a paradigmatic case of ‘colonized’ ethics that hides the different moral judgments and the (...) alternative cultural axiologies. We begin with the hypothesis that there is a possibility of questioning the real purpose and contribution of this applied ethics, using a dilemmatic perspective specific to human and legal sciences. In order to execute this type of analysis, which is highly required to understand what the future of these proposals is and how it can affect the regulation of AI, an analysis related to the contemporary literature from the Decoloniality field will be performed. (shrink)

Open peer commentary on the article “Homeostats for the 21st Century? Simulating Ashby Simulating the Brain” by Stefano Franchi. Upshot: The target article has addressed core concepts of Ashby’s generalized homeostasis thesis as well as its relevance to building complex artificial systems. In this commentary, I discuss Ashby-inspired approaches to designing for ultrastable behaviour in robots and the extent to which complex adaptive behaviour can be underdetermined by heteronomous constraints.

Can we make machines that think and act like humans or other natural intelligent agents? The answer to this question depends on how we see ourselves and how we see the machines in question. Classical AI and cognitive science had claimed that cognition is computation, and can thus be reproduced on other computing machines, possibly surpassing the abilities of human intelligence. This consensus has now come under threat and the agenda for the philosophy and theory of AI must be set (...) anew, re-defining the relation between AI and Cognitive Science. We can re-claim the original vision of general AI from the technical AI disciplines; we can reject classical cognitive science and replace it with a new theory (e.g. embodied); or we can try to find new ways to approach AI, for example from neuroscience or from systems theory. To do this, we must go back to the basic questions on computing, cognition and ethics for AI. The 30 papers in this volume provide cutting-edge work from leading researchers that define where we stand and where we should go from here. (shrink)