AT&T Tech Support 360
Their efforts to re-create human intelligence in hardware and software have led to some very smart machines--just think of IBM's Deep Blue beating chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov, whose genius for the game couldn't match the computer's high-speed calculations. But aside from that rarified skill, the machine would be no match for the average 3-year-old in figuring out how to get the best of a grown-up human.
Invasion of the robots
In her new book, "God in the Machine: What Robots Teach Us About God and Humanity," Foerst draws on her experience at MIT's Artificial Intelligence Laboratory to paint a picture of how people and robots can and should interact--and whether, at some point down the road from today's Aibo and Asimo contraptions, the human community might confer "personhood" on robots.
Foerst spent six years at MIT, where she broke ground with her class, "God and Computers," and now teaches at St. Bonaventure University in Oleans, N.Y. She spoke recently with CNET News.com about changes in the field of AI, social learning for robots and the need for embodied intelligence--that is, the ability for thinking creatures, and machines, to interact with and survive in the real world.
Q: How does a theologian end up at the MIT AI Labs?
Foerst: Even as a small child I was always fascinated with machines and building stuff, but then I got hooked on theology because I just think this is the most interesting field when you want to learn about human ambiguity and human frailty--the fun stuff to being human.
So I studied theology, but I had space to do something else and so I thought well, why not do a little bit of computer science?...I went to MIT basically just to do research because that is where AI was founded. I met Rod Brooks (head of MIT's AI Lab and co-founder of iRobot) and a lot of other people--they really liked my research and they were surprised that I was not critical--I didn't attack them. But I could offer a very unique perspective because I was really studying why people are interested in AI, what they get out of that for themselves.
What did you find out about the people who study AI--what makes somebody want to study AI?
Foerst: What I found out was that there is this big wish to have a unified, coherent world view in which everything fits together, which is a desire you find a lot in science. In AI it's particularly strong because they include human nature, the whole idea that humans are actually logical--if we just can understand them. That there is a way to deal with our ambiguities and paradoxes and miscommunications, that ultimately those paradoxes and ambiguities can be overcome, which for a Lutheran theologian, for me, is kind of interesting because I define sin not traditionally, (as) guilt, but sin is really the living in ambiguity, the very fact that humans are not logical. I see the whole AI, and the classical AI, endeavor very much as an attempt to overcome sin.
Rod and other people...kind of criticized that classical camp, (which is) concentrated on high intellectual powers, on math and logic as the pinnacle of intelligence. They kind of embrace the whole embodiment stuff. I shared their critique of the classical approach.
I found out that they were much more tolerant toward religion, even though they weren't religious themselves--they were very supportive of me being religious and of me describing them in religious terms because they realize they don't know everything. What I really like about that--there was inherent modesty in them. They didn't think they would solve the world's problems, but they really realize it's so hard to build a humanoid robot and that actually made them appreciate human nature more.
In the book you described AI as a spiritual quest.
(There was a notion in) the more traditional approaches, "Oh! It's fun to play God"--that was completely gone in this embodiment camp...We really have undergone, not only in AI but in the general cognitive science in the last five to six, perhaps 10, years--slowly we're undergoing a paradigm shift where the understanding of humans goes toward more modesty because it is so complex, because we have to include the body and social interaction.
So Marvin Minsky's notion of a human as a "meat machine," is that a minority view now in AI?
Foerst: Basically Marvin Minsky says, "That is what we are, and we are nothing but that," while modern AI research says it makes sense in the context of AI to talk about us as meat machines--it just makes sense, but that doesn't mean we are. If you try to build artificial humans, you have to assume we are nothing but machines, otherwise you can give up your (effort), you can give up your hopes. But it's a pragmatic assumption and I think in the beginning of AI, it was an ontological assumption.
What does it take for robots to be like us, to make a robot that functions like a human being?
Foerst: I think the robot would have to have the capability to interact, to form meaningful relationships and to understand the value of those relationships, to understand the difference between me and other, to have empathy. Those would be the things I would describe as most crucial, and I do believe that we can build something like that. But I also do believe that if we cannot build it already ready-made, we have to build them in the way that they, like human babies, go through a process of social learning, and probably for the first critter to be built, that social process will take years and years and years, much longer than for a human baby.
See more CNET content tagged:
ambiguity,
robot,
human,
researcher
http://www.discover.com/issues/apr-05/features/whole-house-machine
Robotics is the 'killer app' in-waiting for architects, engineers, builders, and most especially the first-time home buyer (or third-world home dreamer) - if only the technology industry would take a closer look!
Paul Seletsky - Assoc. AIA
Associate Partner and Director of Technology
Davis Brody Bond Architects, New York, NY
Chair, Technology Committee
American Institute of Architects - NY Chapter
Committee Member - Technology in Architectural Practice
American Institute of Architects
I wonder if she has ever read Frank Herbert's "Dune" books...
----------
"Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them."
" 'Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man's mind,' "
... "But what the Orange Catholic Bible should've said is: 'Thou shalt not make a machine to counterfeit a human mind.' "
----------
As to "God" and robots, I wonder what she thinks of the current incarnation of "Battlestar Galactia" and the Cylon robots with their single "God" fighting the humans and their "Gods of Kobol?"
The more that is learned from various arcane points of view, the easier it will be to collect useful behavior into a singular device.
AI as a spiritual quest; yes.
Again you have not lived long enough to say the things you say are fact.- Rich
Coming to the actual problem of AI, it already exists all around you for specialized problems to the point where you almost fail to notice it, am not sure what is the benefit in trying to teach human behavior to machines, I think we should do better.
Once we figure out the mind design, we will have more clarity in understanding ourselves.
To be considered educated, first it was theology/church, then it was shakespheare, currently is it science and technology, but in US we seem to go back full circle instead of embracing reason.
all you need is one simple IF statement
If this (new information, technology) better?
True: apply to itself and loop.
False:
Searh_for_information() (search Internet? such a big database)
Loop.
If it was written correctly, the initial database (brain) can start with empty and the algorithm will learn itself. The search function will not be easy to write (of cause) but long enough, the algorithm will be able to replace the search algorithm written by human by its own (oh wait function over-ride? doom day?). but what do I know?, I am BBA Major.
Just some ideas.
___________________________________________________
COMPUTERS & PHILOSOPHY, an International Conference
___________________________________________________
Le Mans University, Laval, France, 3-5 May, 2006
Chair: C.T.A. Schmidt
Conference web page: http://www.iut-laval.univ-lemans.fr/i-CaP_2006/
IMPORTANT DATES (check conference url for up-to-date information)
Friday November 18 th 2005 Submission deadline for extended abstracts
3-5 May 2006, Conference in Laval France
GENERAL INFORMATION
From Wednesday 3rd to Friday 5th May 2006, COMPUTERS & PHILOSOPHY will be held in cooperation with the American Association for Artificial Intelligence at Le Mans University in Laval (near Rennes, France).
Overview: Those interested in the study of philosophical problems and related technological applications are encouraged to participate. Philosophical, epistemological, theological and anthropological stances
on the construction and use of machines, computers and Robots are of
relevance to the conference.
Within the framework of the programme, we are looking forward to the
contributions of some eminent thinkers:
FRANCE Francis JACQUES Philosophy, Theology, Litterature, Sorbonne
USA Daniel DENNETT, Philosophy, Tufts
USA Rodney BROOKS, Robotics, MIT
Italy Lorenzo MAGNANI, Epistemology & Philosophy of Science, Pavia
UK Margaret BODEN, Art. Intelligence, Cognitive Sc. & Philosophy, Sussex
Canada Daniel VANDERVEKEN, Logic & Language, UQTR
Thailand Darryl MACER, UNESCO Reg. Adviser for Soc.& Human Sc. in
Asia-Pacific
UK Noel SHARKEY, Computation & Robotics, Sheffield
FRANCE Denis VERNANT, Logic & Philosophical Pragmatics, Grenoble
SCIENTIFIC PROGRAMME
The increasing interaction between Philosophy and Computer Science over the past 40 years has lead to many position-taking stances in theories of mind, applied machine-embedded intelligence and cultural adaptations to the onslaught of robots in society. The chair is seeking short contributions to the body of knowledge within or about the intersection of the two fields. Is there a proper answer to the question of whether machines can think? Contemporary thought on computers and Artificial
Intelligence is not the exclusive aim of the conference the birth of original forms of machine intelligence can inform us about potential human beliefs and permissibility thresholds with regards to technology ?i.e. are all communities equally-footed with respect to machines that speak? The notion of machines that have desires and beliefs, increase their own learning capabilities, develop bodily functions, play games with us, help us learn, help children or the ill to express themselves, care-give the elderly, etc. used to create heated debates. Or do they still do so? In view of these on-going investigations, comparative studies and forward-looking accounts are welcome, as well as reports on innovative uses of knowledge found at the crossroads of philosophy and intelligent machinery sciences. Breaking news in computer science that pull the philosopher towards the computationalist point of view on mind are equally encouraged; and so are proposals that show the limits of representationalist theories. The main goal of the conference is to spur on interdisciplinary dialogue between 50-80 engaging intellectuals. Potential contributors may wish to use the topics listed below for further inspiration.
RELEVANT RESEARCH AREAS
In addition to main-stream areas of research ?Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence, Intelligent Robotics, Cognitive Science, Computer Ethics? we are looking for cross-cultural studies on the place of machines in society, as well as the following:
1. Evolution & Technologies
* Evolutionary Computation and Evolutionary Language Development
* Information Systems and the Philosophy of Design
* Biologically-Incorporated Intelligence; the Use of Organic Components
for Robotics
* Bio-computation, Bio-Robotics, Artificial Life & Meaning
* Robotics (Humanoid, Cognitive, Epigenetic, "Autonomous", Service, etc.)
* Humanoid Hosts and Guides for Museums, Galleries and Virtual Reality
Environments
2. Pragmatics & Comp. Linguistics
* Speech Acts and the Limits of Machine-embedded Use of Dialogue
* Obstacles to Parsing (Accents, Intonations, Emotional States, etc.)
* Relations, Reference and Communicability
* Artificial Affectivity in (non-)Dialogical Settings
* Dialogical Capabilities of Machines & Philosophy of Communication
* All Language, Meaning and Dialogue Issues
3. Minds and Intentionality
* Evocative Objects and Presumed Intelligence
* Personification of Artefacts
* Other Minds Theories and Simulating Co-intentionality
* The Mind/Body Problem in Cognitive Science
* European Versions (and Anti-theses) of the Intentional Stance
4. Culture & Adaptability
* All Anthropological Views on Computers and Robots
* Context-embedded Computer Learning
* In-class Robotic Teachers, Vulgarisation and (non-)Acceptance Issues
* The Pros and Cons of Computer-Mediated Communication & Learning
* Virtual Reality & Digitally-supported Personalities
* Post-modernism and Fiction related to Machines and Individuals
5. History, Ethics & Theology
* Issues arising from the Automation of Thought
* Designing Users' Beliefs, Beliefs Designing Machines, Religious
Deontology
* Robo-Ethics, Moral Agents, Spirituality of Machines, Technological Souls
* The Impacts of Intelligent Computers and Robotics on Society
throughout History
* Cognitive Epistemology or Science as Applied Technology
6. Other
* Transdisciplinary attempts to link Philosophy, Computing and/or Robotics
Please see web site for full details; programme, topics, accommodation, registration as well as a colourful poster and detailed information on plenary session talks.
Conference web page: http://www.iut-laval.univ-lemans.fr/i-CaP_2006/