Search

The standard argument to the conclusion that artificial intelligence (AI) constitutes an existential risk for the human species uses two premises: (1) AI may reach superintelligent levels, at which point we humans lose control (the 'singularity claim'); (2) Any level of intelligence can go along with any goal (the 'orthogonality thesis'). We find that the singularity claim requires a notion of 'general intelligence', while the orthogonality thesis requires a notion of 'instrumental intelligence'. If this interpretation is correct, they cannot be joined as premises and the argument for the existential risk of AI turns out invalid. If the interpretation is incorrect and both premises use the same notion of intelligence, then at least one of the premises is false and the orthogonality thesis remains itself orthogonal to the argument to existential risk from AI. In either case, the standard argument for existential risk from AI is not sound.—Having said that, there remains a risk of instrumental AI to cause very significant damage if designed or used badly, though this is not due to superintelligence or a singularity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Veritas: Journal of Philosophy & Theology is the property of Saint Rafael Pontifical Major Seminary and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

While the 2010 EPSRC principles for robotics state a set of five rules of what “should” be done, I argue they should differentiate between legal obligations and ethical demands. Only if we make this difference can we state clearly what the legal obligations already are, and what additional ethical demands we want to make. I provide suggestions how to revise the rules in this light and how to make them more structured. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The contribution of the body to cognition and control in natural and artificial agents is increasingly described as "offloading computation from the brain to the body," where the body is said to perform "morphological computation." Our investigation of four characteristic cases of morphological computation in animals and robots shows that the "offloading" perspective is misleading. Actually, the contribution of body morphology to cognition and control is rarely computational, in any useful sense of the word. We thus distinguish (1) morphology that facilitates control, (2) morphology that facilitates perception, and the rare cases of (3) morphological computation proper, such as reservoir computing, where the body is actually used for computation. This result contributes to the understanding of the relation between embodiment and computation: The question for robot design and cognitive science is not whether computation is offloaded to the body, but to what extent the body facilitates cognition and control-how it contributes to the overall orchestration of intelligent behavior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

From a European perspective the US debate about gun control is puzzling because we have no such debate: It seems obvious to us that dangerous weapons need tight control and that 'guns' fall under that category. I suggest that this difference occurs due to different habits that generate different attitudes and support this explanation with an analogy to the habits about knives. I conclude that it is plausible that individual knife-people or gun-people do not want tight regulatory legislation--but tight knife and gun legislation is morally obligatory anyway. We need to give up our habits for the greater good. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Floridi and Taddeo propose a condition of ‘zero semantic commitment’ for solutions to the grounding problem, and a solution to it. I argue briefly that their condition cannot be fulfilled, not even by their own solution. After a look at Luc Steel's very different competing suggestion, I suggest that we need to re-think what the problem is and what role the ‘goals’ in a system play in formulating the problem. On the basis of a proper (syntactic) understanding of computing, I come to the conclusion that the only sensible grounding problem is how we can explain and re-produce thebehavioural abilityandfunctionof meaning in artificial computational agents. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses various reports within the issue on topics including artificial intelligence (AI), technology and machine ethics.

We discuss in some length evidence from the cognitive science suggesting that the representations of objects based on spatiotemporal information and featural information retrieved bottom-up from a visual scene precede representations of objects that include conceptual information. We argue that a distinction can be drawn between representations with conceptual and nonconceptual content. The distinction is based on perceptual mechanisms that retrieve information in conceptually unmediated ways. The representational contents of the states induced by these mechanisms that are available to a type of awareness called phenomenal awareness constitute the phenomenal content of experience. The phenomenal content of perception contains the existence of objects as separate things that persist in time and time, spatiotemporal information, and information regarding relative spatial relations, motion, surface properties, shape, size, orientation, color, and their functional properties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]