The current debate on artificial intelligence (AI) tends to associate AI imaginaries with the vision of a future technology capable of emulating or surpassing human intelligence. This article advocates for a more nuanced analysis of AI imaginaries, distinguishing “strong AI narratives,” i.e., narratives that envision futurable AI technologies that are virtually indistinguishable from humans, from "weak" AI narratives, i.e., narratives that discuss and make sense of the functioning and implications of existing AI technologies. Drawing on the academic literature on (...) AI narratives and imaginaries and examining examples drawn from the debate on Large Language Models and public policy, we underscore the critical role and interplay of weak and strong AI across public/private and fictional/non-fictional discourses. The resulting analytical framework aims to empower approaches that are more sensitive to the heterogeneity of AI narratives while also advocating normalising AI narratives, i.e., positioning weak AI narratives more firmly at the center stage of public debates about emerging technologies. (shrink)

Contre toute attente is the manifesto of a thought that refuses passivity and can only endlessly seek the "weak force" of hope for a different, spectral, melancholy future. This book brings together several works around Gerard Bensussan which retrace the paths of his philosophical reflection.

인공지능을 논의할 때 사람들은 흔히 ‘약한weak’ 인공지능과 ‘강한 strong’ 인공지능의 구별을 사용하고 있다. 이 구별은 인공지능들을 서로 구별할때만 흔히 사용될 뿐 아니라, 인공지능을 인간과 구별하는 데에서도 사용된다. 이 점은 인공지능에 대한 세 가지 유형의 관점에서 살펴볼 수 있다. 첫째는 인간의 창의적인 마음과 인공지능을 구별하는 이론이며, 둘째는 인간의 포괄적인 능력을 강한 지능의 기준으로 삼는 관점이며, 셋째는 인간보다 우월한 종을 강한 인공지능의 기준과 목표로 삼는 관점이다.BR 본 연구는 그 관점들이 전제하는 명제나 주장의 적절성 및 모호성을 살펴볼 것이다. 그러나 본 연구는 다른 한편으로 (...) 그들 모두에게 공통된 전제가 두 가지 있다는 것을 분석할 것이다. 첫째 전제는 종 차원에서의 인간과 기계의 ‘대립의 가설’이라고 부를 수 있는 이분법이다. 둘째 전제는 강함과 약함의 위계질서이다. 위의 세 가지 유형이 개별적으로 설정하거나 전제하는 내용 가운데 핵심은 단순히 이 위계질서가 아닐 터이지만, 강함과 약함의 기준에서 인간지능과 인공지능을 구별하는 과정에서 이 위계질서가 과도하게 일반화되었다고 할 수 있다. 더욱이 이 두 전제가 강한 지능과 약한 지능을 구별하는 과정에서 결합되면서, 서로를 강화시켜주는 일이 일어난다. (shrink)

Searle (1980) constructed the Chinese Room (CR) to argue against what he called \Strong AI": the claim that a computer can understand by virtue of running a program of the right sort. Margaret Boden (1990), in giving the English Reply to the Chinese Room argument, has pointed out that there isunderstanding in the Chinese Room: the understanding required to recognize the symbols, the understanding of English required to read the rulebook, etc. I elaborate on and defend this response to Searle. (...) In particular, I use the insight of the English Reply to contend that Searle's Chinese Room cannot argue against what I call the claim of \Weak Strong AI": there are some cases of understanding that a computer can achieve solely by virtue of that computer running a program. I refute several objections to my defense of the Weak Strong AI thesis. (shrink)

This paper offers an Aristotelian-Thomistic response to the question whether AI is capable of developing virtue. On the one hand, it could be argued that this is possible on the assumption of the minimalist (thin) definition of virtue as a stable (permanent) and reliable disposition toward an actualization of a given power in the agent (in various circumstances), which effects that agent’s growth in perfection. On the other hand, a closer inquiry into Aquinas’s understanding of both moral and intellectual virtues, (...) and a more detailed analysis of the ontological status of AI, show that it is highly unlikely to envision the design of specifically human-like reason-based and/or behavioral-based (“strong”) AI that would possess properly human virtues. Still, virtuous “weak AI” might be possible, although a question ought to be asked whether we should classify artifacts’ virtues using categories developed in reference to specifically human dispositions and actions. (shrink)

John Searle's attack on the Strong AI thesis, and the published replies, are all based on a failure to distinguish two interpretations of that thesis, a strong one, which claims that the mere occurrence of certain process patterns will suffice for the occurrence of mental states, and a weak one which requires that the processes be produced in the right sort of way. Searle attacks strong strong AI, while most of his opponents defend weak strong AI. This paper (...) explores some of Searle's concepts and shows that there are interestingly different versions of the 'Strong AI' thesis, connected with different kinds of reliability of mechanisms and programs. (shrink)

Recent breakthroughs in the field of artificial intelligence (AI) have sparked a wide public debate on the potentialities of AI, including the prospect to evolve into a subject comparable to humans. While scientists typically avoid directly addressing this question, philosophers usually tend to largely dismiss such a possibility. This article begins by examining the historical and systematic context favoring this inclination. However, it argues that the speculative philosophy of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel offers a different perspective. Through an exploration of (...) Hegel’s Philosophy of Mind, particularly the ‘Phenomenology of Mind’ and ‘Psychology’ sections, this article investigates the conceptual resources within Hegel’s philosophy to understand and evaluate both current ‘weak’ AI and potential ‘strong’ AI. It contends that, according to the Hegelian speculative line of thought, AI is already partially ‘conscious,’ though not yet ‘intelligent’ or possessing a ‘mind.’ Furthermore, it highlights that the same line of thought does not philosophically dismiss the formal possibility of strong AI and artificial subjects like us; rather, it suggests that it is solely empirical research that possesses the competence to rigorously investigate the real possibility of such entities. Before reaching its conclusion, the article emphasizes that the Hegelian perspective implies a philosophy of integrating strong AI: if artificial subjects resembling humans become technically feasible, we have a moral responsibility to actively support their development from the beginning, similarly to how we nurture and welcome emerging human subjects into our families and societies. (shrink)

It has been claimed that a great deal of AI research is an attempt to discover the empirical laws describing a new type of entity in the world—the artificial computing system. I call this enterprise 'medium AI', since it is in some respects stronger than Searle's 'weak AI', and in other respects weaker than 'strong AI'. Bruce Buchanan, among others, conceives of medium AI as an empirical science entirely on a par with psychology or chemistry. I argue that medium (...) AI is not an empirical science at all. Depending on how artificial computing systems are categorized, it is either an a priori science like mathematics, or a branch of engineering. (shrink)

Digital cultural assets are often thought to exist in separate spheres based on their two principal points of origin: digitized and born digital. Increasingly, advances in digital curation are blurring this dichotomy, by introducing so-called “collections as data,” which regardless of their origination make cultural assets more amenable to the application of new computational tools and methodologies. This paper brings together archivists, scholars, and technologists to demonstrate computational treatments of digital cultural assets using Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning techniques that (...) can help unlock hard-to-reach archival content. It describes an extended, iterative study applied to digitized and datafied WWII-era records housed at the FDR Presidential Library, rich content that is regrettably under-utilized by scholars examining American responses to the Holocaust. Authors detail the benefits of interdisciplinary collaboration for evaluating user needs, identifying and applying tools and methodologies, and reaching the real-world outcome of public access to augmented data. They also discuss issues of digital representation, relational context, and interface design to enable new modes of public and scholarly access. While based on a case study, we believe that this work is a substantial contribution to revealing the strengths and weaknesses of using AI/ML systems in cultural organizations. We give particular care to lessons learned, and generalize the approach taken across broad classes of collections with a focus on responsive iterations, reproducibility, and the relevance of data and its structures to users. (shrink)

In this chapter, I introduce three different types of AI-based moral enhancement proposals discussed in the literature – substitutive enhancement, value-driven enhancement, and value-open moral enhancement. I analyse them based on the following criteria: effectiveness, examining whether they bring about tangible moral changes; autonomy, assessing whether they infringe on human autonomy and agency; and developmental impact, considering whether they hinder the development of natural moral skills. This analysis demonstrates that no single approach to AI enhancement can satisfy all proposed criteria, (...) suggesting a need for pluralism in devising AI-based enhancement tools. The most advisable approach to AI-based enhancement is to explore and develop a variety of tools that cater to the diverse needs of users and address different weaknesses in moral decision-making. (shrink)

The modern program of operationalizing the mind, from Descartes to Kant, in the form of the externalization of human mind functions in logic and calculations, and its continuation in the program of formalization from the middle of the 19th century with Boole, Peirce and Turing, have led to the form of rationality that has become machine rationality: the digital computer as a logical-mathematical machine and algorithms as machine-rational interpretations of human thinking in the form of problem solving and decision making. (...) The modern program of the operationalization of the mind can be understood as the first program of an "artificial intelligence" on paper. With the advent of digital computers, it was transformed into the programs of "strong" and "weak" AI. As early as 2015, machine learning methods surpassed human competencies in image recognition and other fields, such turning AI increasingly into "superhuman AI." Thus, the philosophical question is, how to deal with this development as humans? (shrink)

Over the last three decades, the rise of embodied cognition (EC) articulated in various schools (or versions) of embodied, embedded, extended and enacted cognition (Gallagher’s 4E) has offered AI a way out of traditional computationalism—an approach (or an understanding) loosely referred to as embodied AI. This view has split into various branches ranging from a weak form on the brink of functionalism (loosely represented by Clarks’ parity principle) to a strong form (often corresponding to autopoietic-friendly enactivism) suggesting that body−world (...) interactions constitute cognition. From an ontological perspective, however, constitution is a problematic notion with no obvious empirical or technical advantages. This paper discusses the ontological issues of these two approaches in regard to embodied AI and its ontological commitments: circularity, epiphenomenalism, mentalism, and disguised dualism. The paper also outlines an even more radical approach that may offer some ontological advantages. The new approach, called the mind-object identity, is then briefly compared with sensorimotor direct realism and with the embodied identity theory. (shrink)

In their joint paper entitled The Replication of the Hard Problem of Consciousness in AI and BIO-AI (Boltuc et al. Replication of the hard problem of conscious in AI and Bio- AI: An early conceptual framework 2008), Nicholas and Piotr Boltuc suggest that machines could be equipped with phenomenal consciousness, which is subjective consciousness that satisfies Chalmer’s hard problem (We will abbreviate the hard problem of consciousness as H-consciousness ). The claim is that if we knew the inner workings of (...) phenomenal consciousness and could understand its’ precise operation, we could instantiate such consciousness in a machine. This claim, called the extra-strong AI thesis, is an important claim because if true it would demystify the privileged access problem of first-person consciousness and cast it as an empirical problem of science and not a fundamental question of philosophy. A core assumption of the extra-strong AI thesis is that there is no logical argument that precludes the implementation of H-consciousness in an organic or in-organic machine provided we understand its algorithm. Another way of framing this conclusion is that there is nothing special about H-consciousness as compared to any other process. That is, in the same way that we do not preclude a machine from implementing photosynthesis, we also do not preclude a machine from implementing H-consciousness. While one may be more difficult in practice, it is a problem of science and engineering, and no longer a philosophical question. I propose that Boltuc’s conclusion, while plausible and convincing, comes at a very high price; the argument given for his conclusion does not exclude any conceivable process from machine implementation. In short, if we make some assumptions about the equivalence of a rough notion of algorithm and then tie this to human understanding, all logical preconditions vanish and the argument grants that any process can be implemented in a machine. The purpose of this paper is to comment on the argument for his conclusion and offer additional properties of H-consciousness that can be used to make the conclusion falsifiable through scientific investigation rather than relying on the limits of human understanding. (shrink)

Our contribution aims at individuating a valid philosophical strategy for a fruitful confrontation between human and artificial representation. The ground for this theoretical option resides in the necessity to find a solution that overcomes, on the one side, strong AI (i.e. Haugeland) and, on the other side, the view that rules out AI as explanation of human capacities (i.e. Dreyfus). We try to argue for Analytic Pragmatism (AP) as a valid strategy to present arguments for a form of weak (...) AI and to explain a notion of representation common to human and artificial agents. (shrink)

By the early 2020s, emotional artificial intelligence will become increasingly present in everyday objects and practices such as assistants, cars, games, mobile phones, wearables, toys, marketing, insurance, policing, education and border controls. There is also keen interest in using these technologies to regulate and optimize the emotional experiences of spaces, such as workplaces, hospitals, prisons, classrooms, travel infrastructures, restaurants, retail and chain stores. Developers frequently claim that their applications do not identify people. Taking the claim at face value, this paper (...) asks, what are the privacy implications of emotional AI practices that do not identify individuals? To investigate privacy perspectives on soft non-identifying emotional AI, the paper draws upon the following: over 100 interviews with the emotion detection industry, legal community, policy-makers, regulators and NGOs interested in privacy; a workshop with stakeholders to design ethical codes for using data about emotions; a UK survey of 2068 citizens on feelings about emotion capture technologies. It finds a weak consensus among social stakeholders on the need for privacy, this driven by different interests and motivations. Given this weak consensus, it concludes that there exists a limited window of opportunity to societally agree principles of practice regarding privacy and the use of data about emotions. (shrink)

In this paper, we propose a methodology to maximize the benefits of interdisciplinary cooperation in AI research groups. Firstly, we build the case for the importance of interdisciplinarity in research groups as the best means to tackle the social implications brought about by AI systems, against the backdrop of the EU Commission proposal for an Artificial Intelligence Act. As we are an interdisciplinary group, we address the multi-faceted implications of the mass-scale diffusion of AI-driven technologies. The result of our exercise (...) lead us to postulate the necessity of a behavioural theory that standardizes the interaction process of interdisciplinary groups. In light of this, we conduct a review of the existing approaches to interdisciplinary research on AI appliances, leading to the development of methodologies like ethics-by-design and value-sensitive design, evaluating their strengths and weaknesses. We then put forth an iterative process theory hinging on a narrative approach consisting of four phases: definition of the hypothesis space, building-up of a common lexicon, scenario-building, interdisciplinary self-assessment. Finally, we identify the most relevant fields of application for such a methodology and discuss possible case studies. (shrink)

With the increased use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in wildlife conservation, issues around whether AI-based monitoring tools in wildlife conservation comply with standards regarding AI Ethics are on the rise. This review aims to summarise current debates and identify gaps as well as suggest future research by investigating (1) current AI Ethics and AI Ethics issues in wildlife conservation, (2) Initiatives Stakeholders in AI for wildlife conservation should consider integrating AI Ethics in wildlife conservation. We find that the existing literature (...) weakly focuses on AI Ethics and AI Ethics in wildlife conservation while at the same time ignores AI Ethics integration in AI systems for wildlife conservation. This paper formulates an ethically aligned AI system framework and discusses pre-eminent on-demand AI systems in wildlife conservation. The proposed framework uses agile software life cycle methodology to implement guidelines towards the ethical upgrade of any existing AI system or the development of any new ethically aligned AI system. The guidelines enforce, among others, the minimisation of intentional harm and bias, diversity in data collection, design compliance, auditing of all activities in the framework and ease of code inspection. This framework will inform AI developers, users, conservationists, and policymakers on what to consider when integrating AI Ethics into AI-based systems for wildlife conservation. (shrink)

The prelims comprise: Historical Background The Turing Test Physical Machines Symbol Systems The Chinese Room Weak AI Strong AI Folk Psychology Eliminative Materialism Processing Syntax Semantic Engines The Language of Thought Formal Systems Mental Propensities The Frame Problem Minds and Brains Semiotic Systems Critical Differences The Hermeneutic Critique Conventions and Communication Other Minds Intelligent Machines.

This essay introduces this special issue on virtue ethics in relation to military AI. It describes the current situation of military AI ethics as following that of AI ethics in general, caught between consequentialism and deontology. Virtue ethics serves as an alternative that can address some of the weaknesses of these dominant forms of ethics. The essay describes how the articles in the issue exemplify the value of virtue-related approaches for these questions, before ending with thoughts for further research.

The year 2012 has witnessed worldwide celebrations of Alan Turing’s 100th birthday. A great number of conferences and workshops were organized by logicians, computer scientists and researchers in AI, showing the continued flourishing of computer science, and the fruitful interfaces between logic and computer science. Logic is no longer just the concept that Frege had about one hundred years ago, let alone that of Aristotle twenty centuries before. One of the prominent features of contemporary logic is its interdisciplinary character, connecting (...) across mathematics, philosophy, modern computer science, and even the cognitive and social sciences. -/- China is no exception. This special issue explores interfaces of logic with AI and other disciplines, and it attempts to give a bird’s eye view of the developing landscape of logic and AI in China. Our contributors come from computer science, AI, philosophy and linguistics, united by their interest in using formal logical tools and notions to deal with substantial problems in their fields. We are aware that AI is a vast area, and that the limitations of space in a volume like this may provide a somewhat incomplete or biased view. Still we hope that the six papers selected here illustrate the concerns and curiosity driving Chinese researchers, on topics shared with our colleagues around the world. -/- One of the active research areas in AI is planning under uncertainty, with incomplete knowledge, where a well-established logical framework is the action language of Son and Baral (Son and Baral 2001). This language can express the notions of sensing actions and making conditional plans. However, its current semantics is not yet satisfactory, since according to the semantics an agent would not have knowledge of what happens after a plan is executed, which can be a serious problem in a safety-critical environment. In their paper Proof Systems for Planning under Cautious Semantics (Shen and Zhao 2013), Yuping Shen and Xishun Zhao address this problem and propose a cautious and weakly cautious semantics for the action language. This new semantics enables the agent to know exactly what happens after executing an action. Hoare style proof systems are then proposed and proved to be sound and complete. What is more, the proposed new system reduces the reasoning complexity of the action language. -/- In Preferential Semantics for Plausible Subsumption in Possibility Theory (Qi and Zhang 2013), Guilin Qi and Zhizheng Zhang investigate another important issue in AI: how to handle exceptions in a knowledge-based system. This has become a hot topic in recent years, especially in ontological design, where description logics are widely used. The question then arises whether we can get a nonmonotonic extension of description logic. To answer this, the authors first propose three preferential semantics for plausible subsumption in the framework of possibility theory (Dubois and Prade 1985) and study their properties and their relationships. Then they introduce preferential subsumptions to a description logic-based knowledge system, and define an entailment relation of plausible subsumption. Moreover, they study reductions of the new semantics to standard semantics for an expressive description logic. -/- Counterfactual reasoning has been explored extensively by philosophers, cf. Lewis (1973), Stalnaker (1968). But in the last two decades, causal models have been proposed for modeling counterfactual reasoning by researchers in AI. In A Lewisian Logic of Causal Counterfactuals (Zhang 2013), Jiji Zhang studies classes of causal models and provides formal characterizations. In particular, a new logic system is proposed and proved complete for the class of ‘Lewisian models’ satisfying all the principles of David Lewis’s logic of counterfactuals. Moreover, Zhang compares his new framework with those of Lewis and Stalnaker, and also establishes formal connections with more recent approaches by Galles and Pearl, and by Halpern. -/- Consistency is a fundamental notion in logic, but it also plays a key role in many techniques for solving constraint satisfaction problems (Mackworth 1977). In Variable-Centered Consistency in Model RB (Li et al. 2013), Liang Li, Tian Liu and Ke Xu start with a discussion of i-consistency in ‘Model RB’ and ‘Model RD’, two models of random constraint satisfaction problems with growing domain size, then compare it with the notion of t-consistency and strong t-consistency in well-known earlier work by Freuder. After that, the authors define a new kind of variable-centered consistency, and show an upper bound on a suitably chosen parameter in Model RB and Model RD, such that up to this bound, all typical instances of Model RB are variable-centered consistent. -/- Language understanding is a cognitive process that human beings carry out every day. Metaphor is a pervasive phenomenon in natural languages, and its cognitive role calls for interpretation. There is a growing body of literature on cognitive mechanisms underlying metaphor. The paper An Ontology-Based Approach to Metaphor Cognitive Computation (Huang et al. 2013) by Xiaoxi Huang, Huaxin Huang, Beishui Liao, and Cihua Xu proposes a theoretical framework for metaphor understanding based on recent results from cognitive science (Shutova 2010). They then introduce ontology as a knowledge representation method, and present a new ontological model to formalize metaphor-based knowledge. An algorithmic description is provided using a quantitative measure of integrated degree, and its effectiveness is demonstrated. -/- Puzzles and their solution mechanisms are a recurrent theme in many fields. Dynamic epistemic logic (van Ditmarsch et al. 2007); (van Benthem 2011) is a recent framework that can handle information dynamics in knowledge puzzles. In Reasoning About Agent Types and the Hardest Logic Puzzle Ever (Liu and Wang 2013), Fenrong Liu and Yanjing Wang propose a new dynamic-epistemic logic that can specify different types of agents and analyse agents’ knowledge, communication and reasoning. To demonstrate its power, Smullyan’s well-known Knights and Knaves puzzles are formalized, as well as the Hardest Logic Puzzle Ever (HLPE) of Boolos (Boolos 1996). Moreover, a spectrum of new puzzles is found involving knowledge-based agent types, and their solution complexity is shown to be harder than that for existing logic puzzles. It is also shown that a version of HLPE in which the agents do not know the others’ types does not have a solution at all. -/- Finally, we would like to thank the editor of Minds and Machines, Gregory Wheeler, for his efficient assistance and kind support. We also thank Ties Nijssen at Springer for his encouragement to start this project at the first place. And of course, our appreciation goes to our authors, as well as all the colleagues who have helped us review the papers in this collection. (shrink)

Healthcare applications of AI have the potential to produce great benefit, but also come with significant ethical risks. This has brought ethics to the forefront of academic, policy and public debates about AI in healthcare. To help navigate these debates, we distinguish three general modes of ethical theorizing in contemporary secular AI ethics: (1) idealism, which seeks to articulate moral ideals that can be applied to concrete problems; (2) realism, which focuses on understanding complex social realities that underpin ethical problems; (...) and (3) pragmatism, which promotes deliberate methods that allow joint action in the present but also enable to future moral growth and progress. We discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each of these modes and illustrate their relevance to salient ethical problems arising from AI in healthcare. Finally, we argue that, while all three have merits, pragmatist approaches deserve more attention they have received thus far. (shrink)

In this paper, I will investigate the possible impact of weak artificial intelligence (more specifically, I will concentrate on deep learning) on human capability of action. For this goal, I will first address Arendt’s philosophy of action, which seeks to emphasize the distinguishing elements of action that set it apart from other forms of human activity. According to Arendt, action should be conceived as praxis, an activity that has its goal in its own very performance. The authentic meaning of (...) action includes the “passion” for articulation of one’s own individuality; I can only manifest myself as a distinct personality insofar as I introduce myself as a novel beginning to the web of human interactions demonstrating both my relevance and distinction from others. From this Arendtian standpoint, I will analyse the impact of deep learning in modern AI from two possible angles. First, I will argue that the direct interaction between AI and action is impossible. Since AI operates on the principle of efficiency, it can neither suggest certain goals for action for us nor overtake their implementation because action is not guided by the instrumental need to be efficient but by the existential desire to be someone. Second, I will also analyse the possibility of the indirect impact of AI on action. More specifically, I analyse neural network’s ability to circulate actions among individuals based on mathematical calculation. As I will argue, the efficiency of this circulation that surpasses human cognitive capacities can potentially organize a broader network of interaction among individuals and serve as a catalyst for the ability to act. (shrink)

Since Chinese scholars are playing an increasingly important role in shaping the national landscape of discussion on AI ethics, understanding their ethical concerns and preferred solutions is essential for global cooperation on governance of AI. This article, therefore, provides the first elaborated analysis on the discourse on AI ethics in Chinese academia, via a systematic literature review. This article has three main objectives. to identify the most discussed ethical issues of AI in Chinese academia and those being left out ; (...) to analyze the solutions proposed and preferred by Chinese scholars ; and to map out whose voices are dominating and whose are in the marginal. Findings suggest that in terms of short-term implications, Chinese scholars’ concerns over AI resemble predominantly the content of international ethical guidelines. Yet in terms of long-term implications, there are some significant differences needed to be further addressed in a cultural context. Further, among a wide range of solution proposals, Chinese scholars seem to prefer strong-binding regulations to those weak ethical guidelines. In addition, this article also found that the Chinese academic discourse was dominated by male scholars and those who are from elite universities, which arguably is not a unique phenomenon in China. (shrink)

This paper argues against the call to democratize artificial intelligence (AI). Several authors demand to reap purported benefits that rest in direct and broad participation: In the governance of AI, more people should be more involved in more decisions about AI—from development and design to deployment. This paper opposes this call. The paper presents five objections against broadening and deepening public participation in the governance of AI. The paper begins by reviewing the literature and carving out a set of claims (...) that are associated with the call to “democratize AI”. It then argues that such a democratization of AI (1) rests on weak grounds, because it does not answer to a demand of legitimization, (2) is redundant in that it overlaps with existing governance structures, (3) is resource intensive, which leads to injustices, (4) is morally myopic and thereby creates popular oversights and moral problems of its own, and finally, (5) is neither theoretically nor practically the right kind of response to the injustices that animate the call. The paper concludes by suggesting that AI should be democratized not by broadening and deepening participation but by increasing the democratic quality of the administrative and executive elements of collective decision making. In a slogan: The question is not so much whether AI should be democratized but how. (shrink)

The transformers that drive chatbots and other AI systems constitute large language models (LLMs). These are currently the focus of a lively discussion in both the scientific literature and the popular media. This discussion ranges from hyperbolic claims that attribute general intelligence and sentience to LLMs, to the skeptical view that these devices are no more than “stochastic parrots”. I present an overview of some of the weak arguments that have been presented against LLMs, and I consider several of (...) the more compelling criticisms of these devices. The former significantly underestimate the capacity of transformers to achieve subtle inductive inferences required for high levels of performance on complex, cognitively significant tasks. In some instances, these arguments misconstrue the nature of deep learning. The latter criticisms identify significant limitations in the way in which transformers learn and represent patterns in data. They also point out important differences between the procedures through which deep neural networks and humans acquire knowledge of natural language. It is necessary to look carefully at both sets of arguments in order to achieve a balanced assessment of the potential and the limitations of LLMs. (shrink)

In this paper, we use a pseudo-algorithmic procedure for assessing an AI-generated text. We apply the Comprehensive Assessment Procedure for Natural Argumentation (CAPNA) in evaluating the arguments produced by an Artificial Intelligence text generator, GPT-3, in an opinion piece written for the Guardian newspaper. The CAPNA examines instances of argumentation in three aspects: their Process, Reasoning and Expression. Initial Analysis is conducted using the Argument Type Identification Procedure (ATIP) to establish, firstly, that an argument is present and, secondly, its specific (...) type in terms of the argument classification framework of the Periodic Table of Arguments (PTA). Procedural Questions are then used to test the acceptability of the argument in each of the three aspects. The analysis shows that while the arguments put forward by the AI text generator are varied in terms of their type and follow familiar patterns of human reasoning, they contain obvious weaknesses. From this we can conclude that the automated generation of persuasive, well-reasoned argumentation is a far more difficult task than the generation of meaningful language, and that if AI systems producing arguments are to be persuasive, they require a method of checking the plausibility of their own output. (shrink)

In the fields of artificial intelligence and robotics, the term “autonomy” is generally used to mean the capacity of an artificial agent to operate independently of human guidance. It is thereby assumed that the agent has a fixed goal or “utility function” with respect to which the appropriateness of its actions will be evaluated. From a philosophical perspective, this notion of autonomy seems oddly weak. For, in philosophy, the term is generally used to refer to a stronger capacity, namely (...) the capacity to “give oneself the law,” to decide by oneself what one’s goal or principle of action will be. The predominant view in the literature on the long-term prospects and risks of artificial intelligence is that an artificial agent cannot exhibit such autonomy because it cannot rationally change its own final goal, since changing the final goal is counterproductive with respect to that goal and hence undesirable. The aim of this paper is to challenge this view by showing that it is based on questionable assumptions about the nature of goals and values. I argue that a general AI may very well come to modify its final goal in the course of developing its understanding of the world. This has important implications for how we are to assess the long-term prospects and risks of artificial intelligence. (shrink)

Emotional AI is an emerging technology used to make probabilistic predictions about the emotional states of people using data sources, such as facial (micro)-movements, body language, vocal tone or the choice of words. The performance of such systems is heavily debated and so are the underlying scientific methods that serve as the basis for many such technologies. In this article I will engage with this new technology, and with the debates and literature that surround it. Working at the intersection of (...) criminology, policing, surveillance and the study of emotional AI this paper explores and offers a framework of understanding the various issues that these technologies present particularly to liberal democracies. I argue that these technologies should not be deployed within public spaces because there is only a very weak evidence-base as to their effectiveness in a policing and security context, and even more importantly represent a major intrusion to people’s private lives and also represent a worrying extension of policing power because of the possibility that intentions and attitudes may be inferred. Further to this, the danger in the use of such invasive surveillance for the purpose of policing and crime prevention in urban spaces is that it potentially leads to a highly regulated and control-oriented society. I argue that emotion recognition has severe impacts on the right to the city by not only undertaking surveillance of existing situations but also making inferences and probabilistic predictions about future events as well as emotions and intentions. (shrink)

This essay introduces this special issue on virtue ethics in relation to military AI. It describes the current situation of military AI ethics as following that of AI ethics in general, caught between consequentialism and deontology. Virtue ethics serves as an alternative that can address some of the weaknesses of these dominant forms of ethics. The essay describes how the articles in the issue exemplify the value of virtue-related approaches for these questions, before ending with thoughts for further research.

A growing number of studies on fairness in artificial intelligence (AI) use the notion of intersectionality to measure AI fairness. Most of these studies take intersectional fairness to be a matter of statistical parity among intersectional subgroups: an AI algorithm is “intersectionally fair” if the probability of the outcome is roughly the same across all subgroups defined by different combinations of the protected attributes. This paper identifies and examines three fundamental problems with this dominant interpretation of intersectional fairness in AI. (...) First, the dominant approach is so preoccupied with the intersection of attributes/categories (e.g., race, gender) that it fails to address the intersection of oppression (e.g., racism, sexism), which is more central to intersectionality as a critical framework. Second, the dominant approach faces a dilemma between infinite regress and fairness gerrymandering: it either keeps splitting groups into smaller subgroups or arbitrarily selects protected groups. Lastly, the dominant view fails to capture what it really means for AI algorithms to be fair, in terms of both distributive and non-distributive fairness. I distinguish a strong sense of AI fairness from a weak sense that is prevalent in the literature, and conclude by envisioning paths towards strong intersectional fairness in AI. (shrink)

Racial, Gender, and Intersectional Biases in AI / -/- Dominant View of Intersectional Fairness in the AI Literature / -/- Three Fundamental Problems with the Dominant View / 1. Overemphasis on Intersections of Attributes / 2. Dilemma between Infinite Regress and Fairness Gerrymandering / 3. Narrow Understanding of Fairness as Parity / -/- Rethinking AI Fairness: from Weak to Strong Fairness.

AI (ethics) initiatives are essential in bringing about fairer, safer, and more trustworthy AI systems. Yet, they also come with various drawbacks, including a lack of effective governance mechanisms, window-dressing, and ‘ethics shopping.’ To address those concerns, hard laws are necessary, and more and more countries are moving in this direction. Two of the most notable recent legislations include the Biden Administration’s Executive Order (EO) on AI and the E.U.’s AI Act (AIA). While several scholarly articles have evaluated the strengths (...) and weaknesses of the AIA and proposed reform measures that could help strengthen the Act, only a couple of papers do the same for the EO or compare the two regulatory initiatives. The following sections try to close this research gap by providing an in-depth comparative analysis of the EO and AIA. They offer, in particular, a critical computer-ethical evaluation of the EO’s and AIA’s pros and cons and similarities and differences and discuss possible ways to improve both legislations. (shrink)

Is it OK to lie to Siri? Is it bad to mistreat a robot for our own pleasure? Under what condition should we grant a moral status to an artificial intelligence system? This paper looks at different arguments for granting moral status to an AI system: the idea of indirect duties, the relational argument, the argument from intelligence, the arguments from life and information, and the argument from sentience. In each but the last case, we find unresolved issues with the (...) particular argument, which leads us to move to a different one. We leave the idea of indirect duties aside since these duties do not imply considering an AI system for its own sake. The paper rejects the relational argument and the argument from intelligence. The argument from life may lead us to grant a moral status to an AI system, but only in a weak sense. Sentience, by contrast, is a strong argument for the moral status of an AI system—based, among other things, on the Aristotelian principle of equality: that same cases should be treated in the same way. The paper points out, however, that no AI system is sentient given the current level of technological development. (shrink)

Artificial intelligence (AI) assurance is an umbrella term describing many approaches—such as impact assessment, audit, and certification procedures—used to provide evidence that an AI system is legal, ethical, and technically robust. AI assurance approaches largely focus on two overlapping categories of harms: deployment harms that emerge at, or after, the point of use, and individual harms that directly impact a person as an individual. Current approaches generally overlook upstream collective and societal harms associated with the development of systems, such as (...) resource extraction and processing, exploitative labour practices and energy intensive model training. Thus, the scope of current AI assurance practice is insufficient for ensuring that AI is ethical in a holistic sense, i.e. in ways that are legally permissible, socially acceptable, economically viable and environmentally sustainable. This article addresses this shortcoming by arguing for a broader approach to AI assurance that is sensitive to the full scope of AI development and deployment harms. To do so, the article maps harms related to AI and highlights three examples of harmful practices that occur upstream in the AI supply chain and impact the environment, labour, and data exploitation. It then reviews assurance mechanisms used in adjacent industries to mitigate similar harms, evaluating their strengths, weaknesses, and how effectively they are being applied to AI. Finally, it provides recommendations as to how a broader approach to AI assurance can be implemented to mitigate harms more effectively across the whole AI supply chain. (shrink)

According to a growing number of researchers, AI may pose catastrophic – or even existential – risks to humanity. Catastrophic risks may be taken to be risks of 100 million human deaths, or a similarly bad outcome. I argue that such risks – while contested – are sufficiently likely to demand rigorous discussion of potential societal responses. Subsequently, I propose four desiderata for approaches to the reduction of catastrophic risks from AI. The quality of such approaches can be assessed by (...) their chance of success, degree of beneficence, degree of non-maleficence, and beneficent side effects. Then, I employ these desiderata to evaluate the promises, limitations and risks of alignment research, timelines research, policy research, halting or slowing down AI research, and compute governance for tackling catastrophic AI risks. While more research is needed, this investigation shows that several approaches for dealing with catastrophic AI risks are available, and where their respective strengths and weaknesses lie. It turns out that many approaches are complementary and that the approaches have a nuanced relationship to approaches to present AI harms. While some approaches are similarly useful for addressing catastrophic risks and present harms, this is not always the case. (shrink)

The application of AI in healthcare has dramatically changed the practice of medicine. In particular, AI has been implemented in a variety of roles that previously required human physicians. Due to AI's ability to outperform humans in these roles, the concern has been raised that AI will completely replace human physicians in the future. In this paper, it is argued that human physician's ability to embellish the truth is necessary to prevent injury or grief to patients, or to protect patients’ (...) feelings. Such embellishments are usually defined as “white lies,” which not only include intentionally providing false, incomplete, or misleading information to patients, but also withholding information. White lies are not uncommon in medical practice, especially in some particular cultures, such as Asia; and to some particular patients, such as children. Here, white lies are defended based on the position of weak paternalism. And although medical AI may surpass human physicians in diagnostic accuracy, efficiency, and treatment, they cannot intentionally lie to patients, which is necessary to prevent injury or grief or to protect patients’ feelings in some cases. From this perspective, it is further argued that AI cannot completely replace human physicians. (shrink)

Over the past decades, due to the course towards digitalization of all areas of life, interest in modeling and creating intelligent systems has increased significantly. However, there are now a stagnation in the industry, a lack of attention to analog and bionic approaches as alternatives to digital, numerous speculations on “neuro” issues for commercial and other purposes, and an increase in social and environmental risks. The article provides an overview of the development of artificial intelligence (AI) conceptions toward increasing the (...) human likeness of machines: from the key ideas of A. Turing and J. von Neumann, who initiated the digitalization of society, to discussions about the definition of AI and the emergence of conceptions of strong and weak AI. Special attention is paid to the approach of A. Sloman, to ideas about the architecture and design of complex artificial systems are considered, which make it possible to “emotionally” expand the idea of weak/strong AI. In the article's section on the necessity and possibility of incorporating emotions into the architecture of AI, the authors reveal the goals and methodological limitations for creating an emotional artificial agent. In addition, the article briefly presents the main principles of the authors' architectural approach to the creation of emotional intellectual systems on the example of the cognitive-affective model of architecture, which allow modeling the impact of emotions on the cognitive processes involved in decision-making processes. The described architectural approach to modeling intelligent systems can be used as a conceptual basis for discussing and formulating a strategy for the development of neurocomputing, philosophy of artificial intelligence, and experimental philosophy, for developing innovative research programs, formulating and solving theoretical and methodological problems. (shrink)

The ongoing debate on the ethics of using artificial intelligence (AI) in military contexts has been negatively impacted by the predominant focus on the use of lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS) in war. However, AI technologies have a considerably broader scope and present opportunities for decision support optimization across the entire spectrum of the military decision-making process (MDMP). These opportunities cannot be ignored. Instead of mainly focusing on the risks of the use of AI in target engagement, the debate about (...) responsible AI should (i) concern each step in the MDMP, and (ii) take ethical considerations and enhanced performance in military operations into account. A characterization of the debate on responsible AI in the military, considering both machine and human weaknesses and strengths, is provided in this paper. We present inroads into the improvement of the MDMP, and thus military operations, through the use of AI for decision support, taking each quadrant of this characterization into account. (shrink)

Organisations that design and deploy artificial intelligence (AI) systems increasingly commit themselves to high-level, ethical principles. However, there still exists a gap between principles and practices in AI ethics. One major obstacle organisations face when attempting to operationalise AI Ethics is the lack of a well-defined material scope. Put differently, the question to which systems and processes AI ethics principles ought to apply remains unanswered. Of course, there exists no universally accepted definition of AI, and different systems pose different ethical (...) challenges. Nevertheless, pragmatic problem-solving demands that things should be sorted so that their grouping will promote successful actions for some specific end. In this article, we review and compare previous attempts to classify AI systems for the purpose of implementing AI governance in practice. We find that attempts to classify AI systems proposed in previous literature use one of three mental models: _the Switch_, i.e., a binary approach according to which systems either are or are not considered AI systems depending on their characteristics; _the Ladder_, i.e., a risk-based approach that classifies systems according to the ethical risks they pose; and _the Matrix_, i.e., a multi-dimensional classification of systems that take various aspects into account, such as context, input data, and decision-model. Each of these models for classifying AI systems comes with its own set of strengths and weaknesses. By conceptualising different ways of classifying AI systems into simple mental models, we hope to provide organisations that design, deploy, or regulate AI systems with the vocabulary needed to demarcate the material scope of their AI governance frameworks. (shrink)

In this paper, I will argue that the responsibility gap arising from new AI systems is reducible to the problem of many hands and collective agency. Systematic analysis of the agential dimension of AI will lead me to outline a disjunctive between the two problems. Either we reduce individual responsibility gaps to the many hands, or we abandon the individual dimension and accept the possibility of responsible collective agencies. Depending on which conception of AI agency we begin with, the responsibility (...) gap will boil down to one of these two moral problems. Moreover, I will adduce that this conclusion reveals an underlying weakness in AI ethics: the lack of attention to the question of the disciplinary boundaries of AI ethics. This absence has made it difficult to identify the specifics of the responsibility gap arising from new AI systems as compared to the responsibility gaps of other applied ethics. Lastly, I will be concerned with outlining these specific aspects. (shrink)

The viewpoint that consciousness, including feeling, could be fully expressed by a computational device is known as strong artificial intelligence or strong AI. Here I offer a defense of strong AI based on machine-state functionalism at the quantum level, or quantum-state functionalism. I consider arguments against strong AI, then summarize some counterarguments I find compelling, including Torkel Franzén’s work which challenges Roger Penrose’s claim, based on Gödel incompleteness, that mathematicians have nonalgorithmic levels of “certainty.” Some consequences of strong AI are (...) then considered. A resolution is offered of some problems including John Searle’s Chinese Room problem and the problem of consciousness propagation under isomorphism. (shrink)

Artificial intelligence technology has been widely applied in many fields. AI-assisted learning environments have been implemented in classrooms to facilitate the innovation of pedagogical models. However, college students' willingness to accept AI-assisted learning environments has been ignored. Exploring the factors that influence college students' willingness to use AI can promote AI technology application in higher education. Based on the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology and the theory of perceived risk, this study identified six factors that influence students' (...) willingness to use AI to analyze their relationships with WTA AI-assisted learning environments. A model including six hypotheses was constructed to test the factors affecting students' WTA. The results indicated that college students showed “weak rejection” of the construction of AI-assisted learning environments. Effort expectancy, performance expectancy, and social influence were all positively related to college students' WTA AI-assisted learning environments. Psychological risk significantly negatively influenced students' WTA. The findings of this study will be helpful for carrying out risk communication, which can promote the construction of AI-assisted learning environments. (shrink)

There has been a lot of discussion and debate on the issue of Islamization of Contemporary Knowledge among Muslim intellectuals. Two Muslim thinkers, namely al-Attas and al-Fārūqī were foremost in the attempt to conceptualise the problem of the Muslim Ummah and the issue of Islamization of knowledge as an epistemological and socio-political solution. This article aims to examine, compare and analyse the ideas of both scholars with respect to the various interpretations of the concept of Islamization of knowledge their definition (...) of the concept, their philosophical framework, and their methodology for achieving the goals of Islamization. It aims at understanding the similarities and differences and the strengths and weaknesses of their conceptions, philosophical framework and methodology. This paper also explores the possibility of reconciliation between their ideas in the hope of further advancing the cause of Islamization of knowledge. (shrink)

What psychological and philosophical significance should we attach to recent efforts at computer simulations of human cognitive capacities? In answering this question, I find it useful to distinguish what I will call "strong" AI from "weak" or "cautious" AI. According to weak AI, the principal value of the computer in the study of the mind is that it gives us a very powerful tool. For example, it enables us to formulate and test hypotheses in a more rigorous and (...) precise fashion. But according to strong AI, the computer is not merely a tool in the study of the mind; rather, the appropriately programmed computer really is a mind, in the sense that computers given the right programs can be literally said to. (shrink)

The present study focuses on the situation in which mind-reading machines will be connected, initially through the incorporation of weak AI, and then in conjunction to strong AI, an aspect that, ongoing, will no longer have a simple medical role, as is the case at present, but one of surveillance and monitoring of individuals—an aspect that is heading us towards a future techno-panoptic singularity. Thus, the general objective of this paper raises the problem of the ontological stability of human (...) nature which, within the limits of the technological singularity of mind-reading machines, leads to the loss of autonomy and a reduction in freedom when it comes to human thoughts. In this paradigm, the hypothesis of a future era of technological singularity is prefigured to be a cumulation of factors in which artificial intelligence holds a dominant position in relation to the human agent, in a techno-panoptic system of human supervision, in the form of a new world order of manifestation/imposition of power—that of a “singleton.” The theoretical objective analyzes the phenomenon of “deterritorrialization” of the Foucauldian panoptic mechanism —which is based on the “biopolitical” system of “biopower”—and its “reterritorialization” in the “territory” of the techno-panoptic singularity, where the scenario of a strong AI “singleton”, represents the alienation of the Being into a hard technological determinism. (shrink)

This paper explores the intersection of AI hallucinations and the question of AI consciousness, examining whether the erroneous outputs generated by large language models (LLMs) could be mistaken for signs of emergent intelligence. AI hallucinations, which are false or unverifiable statements produced by LLMs, raise significant philosophical and ethical concerns. While these hallucinations may appear as data anomalies, they challenge our ability to discern whether LLMs are merely sophisticated simulators of intelligence or could develop genuine cognitive processes. By analyzing the (...) causes of AI hallucinations, their impact on the perception of AI cognition, and the potential implications for AI consciousness, this paper contributes to the ongoing discourse on the nature of artificial intelligence and its future evolution. (shrink)

The development of the systems of artificial intelligence (AI) and digital transformation in general lead to the formation of multitude of autonomous agents of artificial and mixed genealogy, as well as to complex structures in the information and regulatory environment with many opportunities and pathologies and a growing level of uncertainty in making managerial decisions. The situation is complicated by the continuing plurality of understanding of the essence of AI systems. The modern expanded understanding of AI goes back to ideas (...) formulated more than 100 years ago. In official national policy documents on the development of AI, working definitions of AI are preferred. The current stage of AI systems life cycle can be assessed as the completion of the initial period in the development of systems associated with weak AI. The ability of artificial systems to realize themselves as a separate person becomes one of the serious scientific and practical challenges. Attention to the issues of the ethics of AIS indicates the expansion of the diversity of its forms and the beginning of the work in the field of goal-setting. New moral and ethical problems also arise in connection with the possibility of the creation of genuine conscious subjects in the foreseeable future. There is an increasing phenomenon of degradation of natural intelligence. It is required to take into account the issue of the heterogeneity of data generated by humans, electronic sensors and network devices in the dynamic complex environments of the digital economy, the issue of the complexity of the process of co-evolution of AI systems, collective and individual natural consciousness. A special area of opportunities and risks is the development of neurotechnologies. The object of control is digital twins, through which there can be manipulation of real attitudes, preferences, and behavior of individuals. As a result, there are the development of technological capabilities that provoke destructive phenomena as well as the formation of a new class of mass addictions. (shrink)

As artificial intelligence becomes ubiquitous, it will be increasingly involved in novel, morally significant situations. Thus, understanding what it means for a machine to be morally responsible is important for machine ethics. Any method for ascribing moral responsibility to AI must be intelligible and intuitive to the humans who interact with it. We argue that the appropriate approach is to determine how AIs might fare on a standard account of human moral responsibility: a Strawsonian account. We make no claim that (...) our Strawsonian approach is either the only one worthy of consideration or the obviously correct approach, but we think it is preferable to trying to marry fundamentally different ideas of moral responsibility into a single cohesive account. Under a Strawsonian framework, people are morally responsible when they are appropriately subject to a particular set of attitudes—reactive attitudes—and determine under what conditions it might be appropriate to subject machines to this same set of attitudes. Although the Strawsonian account traditionally applies to individual humans, it is plausible that entities that are not individual humans but possess these attitudes are candidates for moral responsibility under a Strawsonian framework. We conclude that weak AI is never morally responsible, while a strong AI with the right emotional capacities may be morally responsible. (shrink)

The Chinese room argument is a thought experiment of John Searle (1980a) and associated (1984) derivation. It is one of the best known and widely credited counters to claims of artificial intelligence (AI)—that is, to claims that computers do or at least can (someday might) think. According to Searle’s original presentation, the argument is based on two key claims: brains cause minds and syntax doesn’t suffice for semantics. Its target is what Searle dubs “strong AI.” According to strong AI, Searle (...) says, “the computer is not merely a tool in the study of the mind, rather the appropriately programmed computer really is a mind in the sense that computers given the right programs can be literally said to understand and have other cognitive states” (1980a, p. 417). Searle contrasts strong AI with “weak AI.” According to weak AI, computers just simulate thought, their seeming understanding isn’t real understanding (just as-if), their seeming calculation is only as-if calculation, etc. Nevertheless, computer simulation is useful for studying the mind (as for studying the weather and other things). (shrink)

The foundations of AI design discourse are worth analyzing. Here, attention is paid to the nature of theory languages used in designing new AI technologies because the limits of these languages can clarify some fundamental questions in the development of AI. We discuss three types of theory language used in designing AI products: formal, computational, and natural. Formal languages, such as mathematics, logic, and programming languages, have fixed meanings and no actual-world semantics. They are context- and practically content-free. Computational languages (...) use terms referring to the actual world, i.e., to entities, events, and thoughts. Thus, computational languages have actual-world references and semantics. They are thus no longer context- or content-free. However, computational languages always have fixed meanings and, for this reason, limited domains of reference. Finally, unlike formal and computational languages, natural languages are creative, dynamic, and productive. Consequently, they can refer to an unlimited number of objects and their attributes in an unlimited number of domains. The differences between the three theory languages enable us to reflect on the traditional problems of strong and weak AI. (shrink)