Critical Response: Selmer Bringsjord

Chess is Too Easy.

The conjecture of this essay inspects the ontological aspect of A.I., and the comparison to humanizing aspects of A.I, examples are made throughout likening the creative thoughts of playwrights attempting to “penetrate the soul” -Henrik Ibsen. The observation is made that Human qualities to story telling are unique to the life experience of a person and that artificial intelligence is ambiguous at best. Humans as a collective have observed and continued to further artificial intellect, and have made many assumptions based on fantastical belief. We can only speculate what may occur in the future with curious anticipation. I would like to make the observation however that humans and indeed any living organic creature seem to be closer to A.I.

We understand A.I to be something controllable and has not yet developed sentient awareness, evolved humans have emotions, empathy, sympathy and a moral compass, that although differs in some ways to each individual, seems to have been hard-wired into us, for example the emotional sense most people feel towards infants, and a scientific observation that small creatures with large eyes tend to effect a maternal instinct, that we may define for instance, tossing a new born child off a cliff to it’s certain death, is something truly horrifying, An A.I. would calculate this to be wrong if it programmed to do so, a human would ‘feel’ this is wrong because of a deep set instinct of survival within the evolution process. In what is observed in both cases either would be ‘compelled’ to protest in the strongest form possible, however human emotions may be infinitely more complex than a machine programmed, it is non the less a direct rule, the same as the ‘Three Laws of Robotics':

  1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
  2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
  3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

These rules are rules closely regarded in our own collective, morally, logically and for survival. Are we simply trying to replicate ourselves, or simulate ourselves? And if we were one day removed by A.I, being an obsolete factor of devolution, would an A.I. become then a simulation and humans a mere biological representation?

Leave a Reply