What is the philosophy of AI

The philosophy of artificial intelligence is a branch of the philosophy of mind and the philosophy of
computer science that explores artificial intelligence and its implications for knowledge and understanding
of intelligence, ethics, consciousness, epistemology, and free will. Furthermore, the technology is concerned
with the creation of artificial animals or artificial people (or, at least, artificial creatures) so the discipline is of
considerable interest to philosophers. These factors contributed to the emergence of the philosophy of
artificial intelligence.

Some of the key philosophical problems associated with AI include:

● The Hard Problem of Consciousness: AI raises questions about whether machines can truly
possess consciousness, subjective experience, or self-awareness. This leads to debates about the
nature of consciousness and whether it can be replicated or simulated in artificial systems.

● Moral Agency and Responsibility: As AI becomes more autonomous and capable of making
complex decisions, questions arise regarding the moral agency and responsibility of AI systems. This
includes issues related to accountability for AI's actions and the implications of AI decision-making on
moral and ethical grounds.

● Autonomy of AI Systems: The development of AI with increasing autonomy raises questions about
whether AI can possess genuine free will or autonomy, and if so, what implications this has for human-
AI interactions and societal structures.

● Epistemological Implications: AI's ability to process vast amounts of data and make inferences
brings into question the nature of knowledge, understanding, and learning. This includes
considerations about the reliability of AI-generated knowledge and the potential impact on human
sense-making and understanding of the world.

● Societal and Political Implications: The rise of AI technology prompts discussions about its impact
on human society, including issues related to labour, inequality, privacy, and power dynamics. This
raises philosophical questions about the nature of human-AI relationships and the potential
reconfiguration of social structures.

● Impact on Human Identity: AI raises concerns about its influence on human identity and existence,
including questions about the implications of AI on human purpose, creativity, and the nature of being.

And now we will focus on the first question, because consider it as the most important and
controversial.

The philosophy of artificial intelligence attempts to answer such questions as:

1. Can a machine act intelligently? Can it solve any problem that a person would solve by thinking?
2. Are human intelligence and machine intelligence the same? Is the human brain essentially a
computer?
 3. Can a machine have a mind, mental states, and consciousness in the same sense that a human being
can? Can it feel how things are?

Important propositions in the philosophy of AI include some of the following:

 Turing's "polite convention": If a machine behaves as intelligently as a human being, then it is as
intelligent as a human being.
 The Dartmouth proposal: "Every aspect of learning or any other feature of intelligence can in
principle be so precisely described that a machine can be made to simulate it."
 Allen Newell and Herbert A. Simon's physical symbol system hypothesis: "A physical symbol
system has the necessary and sufficient means of general intelligent action."
 John Searle's strong AI hypothesis: "The appropriately programmed computer with the right
inputs and outputs would thereby have a mind in exactly the same sense human beings have
minds."
 Hobbes' mechanism: "For 'reason' ... is nothing but 'reckoning,' that is adding and subtracting, of
the consequences of general names agreed upon for the 'marking' and 'signifying' of our
thoughts..."

1) Can a machine act intelligently? Can it solve any problem that a person would
solve by thinking?
Is it possible to create a machine that can solve all the problems humans solve using their intelligence? This
question defines the scope of what machines could do in the future and guides the direction of AI research. It
only concerns the behavior of machines and ignores the issues of interest to psychologists, cognitive
scientists and philosophers, evoking the question: does it matter whether a machine is really thinking, as a
person thinks, rather than just producing outcomes that appear to result from thinking?
The basic position of most AI researchers is summed up in this statement, which appeared in the proposal for
the Dartmouth workshop of 1956:

 "Every aspect of learning or any other feature of intelligence can in principle be so precisely
described that a machine can be made to simulate it".
Arguments against the basic premise must show that building a working AI system is impossible because
there is some practical limit to the abilities of computers or that there is some special quality of the human
mind that is necessary for intelligent behavior and yet cannot be duplicated by a machine (or by the methods
of current AI research).

2) Arguments that a machine can display general intelligence

 The brain can be simulated: Hubert Dreyfus describes this argument as claiming that "if the nervous
system obeys the laws of physics and chemistry, which we have every reason to suppose it does,
then ... we ... ought to be able to reproduce the behavior of the nervous system with some physical
device". This argument, first introduced as early as 1943 and vividly described by Hans Moravec in
1988, is now associated with futurist Ray Kurzweil, who estimates that computer power will be
sufficient for a complete brain simulation by the year 2029. A non-real-time simulation of a
thalamocortical model that has the size of the human brain (1011 neurons) was performed in 2005, and
it took 50 days to simulate 1 second of brain dynamics on a cluster of 27 processors.

Even AI's harshest critics (such as Hubert Dreyfus and John Searle) agree that a brain simulation is
possible in theory. However, Searle points out that, in principle, anything can be simulated by a
computer. "What we wanted to know is what distinguishes the mind from thermostats and livers," he
 writes. Thus, merely simulating the functioning of a living brain would in itself be an admission of
ignorance regarding intelligence and the nature of the mind.

 Human thinking is symbol processing: In 1963, Allen Newell and Herbert A. Simon proposed that
"symbol manipulation" was the essence of both human and machine intelligence. They wrote:

"A physical symbol system has the necessary and sufficient means of general intelligent action." This
claim is very strong: it implies both that human thinking is a kind of symbol manipulation (because a
symbol system is necessary for intelligence) and that machines can be intelligent (because a symbol
system is sufficient for intelligence).

"The mind can be viewed as a device operating on bits of information according to formal rules."

3) Can a machine have a mind, mental states, and consciousness in the same
sense that a human being can? Can it feel how things are?
This is a philosophical question, related to the problem of other minds and the hard problem of
consciousness. The question revolves around a position defined by John Searle as "strong AI":

 A physical symbol system can have a mind and mental states.

Searle distinguished this position from what he called "weak AI":

 A physical symbol system can act intelligently.

Searle introduced the terms to isolate strong AI from weak AI so he could focus on what he thought was the
more interesting and debatable issue. He argued that even if we assume that we had a computer program
that acted exactly like a human mind, there would still be a difficult philosophical question that needed to be
answered.
Neither of Searle's two positions are of great concern to AI research, since they do not directly answer the
question "can a machine display general intelligence?" (unless it can also be shown that consciousness
is necessary for intelligence).
Russell and Norvig agree: «Most AI researchers take the weak AI hypothesis for granted, and don't care
about the strong AI hypothesis.»

Arguments that a computer cannot have a mind and mental states

 Searle's Chinese room: John Searle asks us to consider a thought experiment: suppose we have
written a computer program that passes the Turing test and demonstrates general intelligent action.
Suppose, specifically that the program can converse in fluent Chinese. Write the program on 3x5 cards
and give them to an ordinary person who does not speak Chinese. Lock the person into a room and
have him follow the instructions on the cards. He will copy out Chinese characters and pass them in
and out of the room through a slot. From the outside, it will appear that the Chinese room contains a
fully intelligent person who speaks Chinese. The question is this: is there anyone (or anything) in the
room that understands Chinese? That is, is there anything that has the mental state of understanding,
or which has conscious awareness of what is being discussed in Chinese? The man is clearly not
aware. The room cannot be aware. The cards certainly are not aware. Searle concludes that
the Chinese room, or any other physical symbol system, cannot have a mind.
Searle goes on to argue that actual mental states and consciousness require (yet to be described)
"actual physical-chemical properties of actual human brains." He argues there are special "causal
properties" of brains and neurons that gives rise to minds: in his words "brains cause minds."
  Related arguments: Leibniz' mill, Davis's telephone exchange, Block's Chinese nation and
Blockhead: Gottfried Leibniz made essentially the same argument as Searle in 1714, using the
thought experiment of expanding the brain until it was the size of a mill. In 1974, Lawrence
Davis imagined duplicating the brain using telephone lines and offices staffed by people, and in
1978 Ned Block envisioned the entire population of China involved in such a brain simulation. This
thought experiment is called "the Chinese Nation" or "the Chinese Gym".
Ned Block also proposed his Blockhead argument, which is a version of the Chinese room in which the
program has been re-factored into a simple set of rules of the form "see this, do that", removing all
mystery from the program.

Conclusion
The philosophical exploration of AI encompasses a wide range of complex and profound questions that
intersect with various fields, including metaphysics, ethics, epistemology, and social theory. As AI technology
continues to advance, these philosophical problems will likely remain central to discussions about the nature
of intelligence, consciousness, morality, and the human experience in relation to artificial entities.

Our resources
[Link]
[Link]