Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 35, No. 382.
Department of Digital Humanities, University of Cologne
Hosted by DH-Cologne
www.dhhumanist.org
Submit to: humanist@dhhumanist.org
Date: 2021-12-02 16:15:09+00:00
From: Henry Schaffer <hes@ncsu.edu>
Subject: Re: [Humanist] 35.380: Russell on "Living with artificial intelligence"
On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 2:59 AM Humanist <humanist@dhhumanist.org> wrote:
> Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 35, No. 380.
> Department of Digital Humanities, University of Cologne
> Hosted by DH-Cologne
> www.dhhumanist.org
> Submit to: humanist@dhhumanist.org
>
>
> ...
>
> [2] From: Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty@mccarty.org.uk>
> Subject: tracking an unattributed quotation (52)
>
>
>
> --[1]------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...
>
> --[2]------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: 2021-12-01 16:12:24+00:00
> From: Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty@mccarty.org.uk>
> Subject: tracking an unattributed quotation
>
> In that first Reith Lecture (mentioned above), Stuart Russell raises the
> question of intelligence, then says the following:
>
> > To answer this question, the field of AI borrowed what was, in the
> > 1950s, a widely accepted and constructive definition of human
> > intelligence:
> >
> > “Humans are intelligent to the extent that our actions can be
> > expected to achieve our objectives.”
> >
> > All those other characteristics of intelligence; perceiving,
> > thinking, learning, inventing, listening to lectures, and so on, can
> > be understood through their contributions to our ability to act
> > successfully.
>
> He buttresses this by quoting Aristotle--"we deliberate not about ends,
> but about means..."--from the Nicomachean Ethics. BUT he does not
> give any source for this 'widely accepted' 1950s definition. Does anyone
> here recognise it?
>
> The problem here as I see it is that the criteria of his 1950s
> 'intelligence'
> exclude a great many kinds of intelligence many of us treasure. He
> invokes two criteria that an intelligent human must satisfy: (1) the
> person
> must have objectives, of which that person is presumably aware; and
> (2) these must be achievable within the realm of reasonable possibility.
>
> Note that Aristotle is talking about practical wisdom, "what is in our
> power, what we can do" (1112a-b, ed. Crisp).
>
> Russell then goes on to note that,
>
> > From the very beginnings of AI, intelligence in machines has been
> > defined in the same way:
> >
> > “Machines are intelligent to the extent that their actions can be
> expected
> > to achieve their objectives.”
>
I'm going to be a bit obtuse - but earlier this week I had to work on a
repair during which I turned on a drill press and lowered the bit to drill a hole
in a piece of wood.
The drill press is certainly a machine, and its action is to rotate a
bit. This rotation is expected to obtain the objective of making a hole in wood.
Is my drill press intelligent? (While it isn't "aware", that isn't
required - "presumably aware".)
--henry
> What's happened here tells the same old story, quite the reverse of the
> historical sequence: the machinic mode of intelligence has been used
> to (re)define the human. For all the dangers of AI he hints at, and
> promises to enlarge on, accepting this seems to me the greatest.
>
> Many thanks for any hints as to the origins of that quotation from the
> 1950s and for any comments.
>
> Yours,
> WM
> --
> Willard McCarty,
> Professor emeritus, King's College London;
> Editor, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews; Humanist
> www.mccarty.org.uk
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted
List posts to: humanist@dhhumanist.org
List info and archives at at: http://dhhumanist.org
Listmember interface at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted/
Subscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/membership_form.php
