Reply to Alan Winfield on Machine Intelligence.

I posted this as a reply three times on Alan's blogpost about machine intelligence, couldn't get the blogger to work, so gave up and posted it here... Hi Alan – I completely disagree that robot intelligence is mostly evolved. By far the majority of both morphology and information processing is carefully designed, with only a tiny part of the parameter space left in some cases to be finalised by GAs. That's not evolution. Second, I do not see that there's any advantage to distinguishing between computation performed by natural or artificial systems, but that doesn't say anything about how their goals or their social roles as moral subjects. Did you see my blogpost this week? Is this in response to it? If not, have a look at it, at least at the slides http://joanna-bryson.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/how-ai-is-influencing-our-future-and.html.

Comments

Alan Winfield said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Alan Winfield said…
Sorry you didn't manage to post a comment - don't know what happened there.

Re your first point - yes I concede I should not have used the word 'mostly'.

Re your second point - my blog post was written (in 2011) after a public debate in which other panellists were arguing from biological/human essentialist points of view. Questions from the audience, and my experience of public engagement in general, reveals that many people do indeed find it alarming and/or surprising that non-biological stuff can be intelligent. You and I may find it unremarkable, but we are not typical.
Joanna said…
Sorry I didn't see the date on the post! Was busy but noticed the tweet storm & finally followed Murray's link. Still I take one issue with your reply — the post was written as if reflecting your own views. I think as academic authorities we have an obligation to be clear if we are stating a populist line, something that reflects current academic consensus, a hypothesis believed by a subset of experts in a field, your own published expert opinion, your expert opinion on something you haven't yet researched or got past peer review, or just your personal opinion on a domain not your primary expertise. All are valuable, but the differences matter. And educating the public ABOUT those differences may be more useful than communicating any one scientific point.
Alan Winfield said…
The post *does* reflect and express my views. It explains why and how I have changed my view. A change prompted, at least in part, by that panel debate.
Joanna said…
Yes, sorry, that was a comment on your comment not your post.