Does artificial intelligence have a soul?

[The Penitent Man]

The slot machines in Vegas are pretty evil creatures.

More evil than the slot machines are the humans who designed & built them.

 

[ebia]

What precisely is the function of a soul? What does it do? How do we know if a soul is present or not? If we removed the soul from a person, what would happen/how would they differ? How would that differ from AI?

These would seem to me to be the basic first steps of answering such a question.

In answering such questions people tend to drop off any toe-hold they had on biblical theology into greek thinking.

Soul, in biblical thinking, is one's whole personhood - body, personality, the lot. Not a detached thing stuck into a body and removable from it - that's greek.

 

[ebia]

This goes back to good ol' Turing and the concepts behind soft and strong AI. If a computer can mimic human behavior to such an extent that it can't be distinguished from a human, is there truly any difference? Soft AI says no, a set of heuristic algorithms that covers enough ground to never go outside its limits is effectively human-like. Strong AI says yes, there is a difference- what makes us human is the methods by which we reason, so if the algorithm used doesn't map to human modes of thinking then it's not human-like.

This is an oversimplification of it, but this is the core idea behind the Turing test, and Eliza (linked previously) was an attempt to prove the premise behind Strong AI over Soft AI.

Somehow I don't find "yes theres a difference, but we can't actually point to any way that difference is manifest except possibly one extreme instance of mathematics" very convincing.

 

[david_x]

I think it does.

I used to play an arcade football video game. It seems like I would always have a 30-point lead with 10 minutes left and then the computer would come back and beat me. "You did that on purpose!", I felt like saying. It never failed. I swear I saw an evil grin in the faces of the computer players.

In a computer chess game that I used to play the computer would humiliate me 99% of the time. But on the rare occassion that I was closing in on checkmate the game would lock up and I would have to restart the computer. It never failed. I think that it liked seeing me suffer and did it on purpose.

And I don't think that there is any doubt that the artificial intelligence opponents in the computer Risk that I used to play had a soul. An evil soul. Every time a player took a territory the occupant's flag would burn and the conqueror's flag would appear in its place. Flags would be burning all over the place when I would play a multi-player game with several computer opponents. Ruthless.

For one they do not have intelligence at all. It is fake intelligence.

 

[david_x]

More evil than the slot machines are the humans who designed & built them.

Is man then good or evil for making the hammer? It is a tool that can construct or destroy or even kill, so what does that say about people?

 

[DeathMagus]

For one they do not have intelligence at all. It is fake intelligence.

What's the difference between "real" and "fake" intelligence?

 

[david_x]

What's the difference between "real" and "fake" intelligence?

What is the difference between existence and non-existence? Life and death? Light and dark?

 

[The Penitent Man]

Artificial Intelligence doesn't have a soul because it is artificial. Machines are not alive because God did not bestow life on them. Machines are the golem of 21st century man.

 

[kharisym]

Somehow I don't find "yes theres a difference, but we can't actually point to any way that difference is manifest except possibly one extreme instance of mathematics" very convincing.

My understanding is that Eliza backfired.

I do, however, hold the opinion that to attempt to use a heuristic or relational database form of AI to approximate the capabilities of a neural net are either very resource-intensive or impossible. Modern AI is not at all like real intelligence- it approximates human behavior on a simple level without providing comprehension or true creativity to its actions. That said, there is no easy way to test creativity or original thought in AI without analyzing the actual method behind it. The best you can do is analyze the method and generate a question/response cycle that will elicit defined responses to test variation in response and applicability of response.

This very test/response cycle is why some researchers have begun using world of warcraft and second life as test beds for their projects. The interaction there is sufficiently complex and uncontrolled, while also being highly observable, as to be an effective test of the 'human like' qualities of the AI.

As we increase our knowledge of how the brain works, we will be able to apply those lessons to AI and the gap between human and machine intellect will diminish.

 

[kharisym]

Artificial Intelligence doesn't have a soul because it is artificial. Machines are not alive because God did not bestow life on them. Machines are the golem of 21st century man.

Where does the soul reside in humans? What's a human without a soul like?

 

[DeathMagus]

What is the difference between existence and non-existence? Life and death? Light and dark?

If we view intelligence as a continuum, we see that AI can reliably produce basic instinctual behavior, in true "stimulus-response" fashion.

There's no reason to believe that the intricacies of human thought are anything more than the same concept, of a complexity several orders of magnitude greater.

Current A.I. is "true" intelligence - just very rudimentary intelligence. The only reason A.I. falls short is because we try to adapt basic stimulus-response behaviors to simulate more nuanced forms of intelligence, with various degrees of success.

 

[JGG]

In answering such questions people tend to drop off any toe-hold they had on biblical theology into greek thinking.

Soul, in biblical thinking, is one's whole personhood - body, personality, the lot. Not a detached thing stuck into a body and removable from it - that's greek.

Okay, so there's our answer: If the AI we're talking about has a programmed personality, a body, etc., etc., then it has a soul.

See how easy that was?

 

[david_x]

If we view intelligence as a continuum, we see that AI can reliably produce basic instinctual behavior, in true "stimulus-response" fashion.

There's no reason to believe that the intricacies of human thought are anything more than the same concept, of a complexity several orders of magnitude greater.

Current A.I. is "true" intelligence - just very rudimentary intelligence. The only reason A.I. falls short is because we try to adapt basic stimulus-response behaviors to simulate more nuanced forms of intelligence, with various degrees of success.

If it were true intelligence they would call it that, but they don't they call it fake intelligence because that is what it is. There is nothing at all rudimentary in the intelligence, it is planned responses to stimuli. A.I. only does as it is told to do, nothing more.

 

[JGG]

If it were true intelligence they would call it that, but they don't they call it fake intelligence because that is what it is. There is nothing at all rudimentary in the intelligence, it is planned responses to stimuli. A.I. only does as it is told to do, nothing more.

Okay, but it's impossible to prove that this isn't exactly how we work. Our entire system of intelligence may simply be responses to stimuli. Certainly in a lot of cases where we only focus on a single variable, or a small number of variables, such as reflexes, and mechanical memory, this is obviously so. As we add on more variables it seems like we really do work off of a stimus response system.

It is not particularly unlikely that all of our responses aren't simply a massive series of responses to a massive number of stimuli, and we can't really prove otherwise.

 

[The Penitent Man]

Is man then good or evil for making the hammer? It is a tool that can construct or destroy or even kill, so what does that say about people?

That people are sinful and depraved.

 

[The Penitent Man]

Okay, so there's our answer: If the AI we're talking about has a programmed personality, a body, etc., etc., then it has a soul.

See how easy that was?

Are you saying that AIs are alive? That they possess life as we do?

 

[The Penitent Man]

What's the difference between "real" and "fake" intelligence?

"Real" intelligence occurs in nature. "Fake" intelligence is created by human technology. Machines, the golems of the 21st century, have nothing that man does not impute into them from his God-given intelligence.

 

[DeathMagus]

If it were true intelligence they would call it that, but they don't they call it fake intelligence because that is what it is. There is nothing at all rudimentary in the intelligence, it is planned responses to stimuli. A.I. only does as it is told to do, nothing more.

"Real" intelligence occurs in nature. "Fake" intelligence is created by human technology. Machines, the golems of the 21st century, have nothing that man does not impute into them from his God-given intelligence.

I've never heard anyone call it "fake intelligence" (22,500 Google hits). "Artificial intelligence" (13.5 million Google hits) simply means "not natural" or "man-made", which is not at all the same as "fake".

The overriding impression I've received from neuro-research is that the brain is essentially a sophisticated, massive parallel processor, operating at a base somewhat higher than binary.

 

[JGG]

Are you saying that AIs are alive? That they possess life as we do?

No, certainly not. But we will most likely reach the point where our technology satisfies the definition of a soul that has been provided to us. In what way are we "alive" that we can say AI never will be?

"Real" intelligence occurs in nature. "Fake" intelligence is created by human technology. Machines, the golems of the 21st century, have nothing that man does not impute into them from his God-given intelligence.

Not yet, but the concept of genuine "learning" AI is still possible. What do we say if that occurs? Presuming you take God to be our programmer, how would that be different from man programming a computer? God has simply been doing it longer than we have, his product will obviously be more advanced.

 

[The Penitent Man]

No, certainly not. But we will most likely reach the point where our technology satisfies the definition of a soul that has been provided to us. In what way are we "alive" that we can say AI never will be?



Not yet, but the concept of genuine "learning" AI is still possible. What do we say if that occurs? Presuming you take God to be our programmer, how would that be different from man programming a computer? God has simply been doing it longer than we have, his product will obviously be more advanced.

More advanced than we can possibly comprehend, yes! Just as we are more advanced than our Playstations and IPods and Predator drones can possibly comprehend. Consciousness is ultimately mysterious and that's why it's ultimately miraculous. Human intelligence has certain limitations due to our limited mode of awareness. We have no choice but to perceive the past, present, and future as seperate.