Question 6: Bet You Can’t Think Like Me
The Turing Test is a test that is named after Alan Turing, of Great Britain. The whole point of the test is to test a man-made machine’s ability to think like a human. The Turing Test was designed to presuppose a couple of things from the beginning. The Turing Test first presupposes that a human will have the capability to determine whether or not they are conversing with a human. The Turing test also presupposes that a machine would be able to hold a conversation with a human. So, every year a panel of judges gets together and asks questions sort of “anonymously” to either humans or machines but the judges are unaware of who they are asking these questions to. They call the human the “confederate.” With the judges being blindsided it allows for them to not come with any pre-disposed thoughts on the test as a whole. It also adds a level of authenticity to the conversation. Because of that desired level of authenticity the judge is able to engage in any type of conversation with the “confederate” or machine. They can literally discuss anything. At the end of the competition it is up to the judge to decide who or what is the human/confederate or the machine. It was Alan Turing’s belief that “by 2000, computers would be able to fool 30 percent of human judges after five minutes of conversation, and that as a result ‘one will be able to speak of machines thinking without expecting to be contradicted” (Christian, 4). Do the judge talks to either the confederate/machine for the first five minutes and then the other for the next five minutes. After that the judge has ten minutes to choose which he thinks is which. The judge also has the opportunity to sort of rate how convinced they are in their decision. The program that is rated and voted the highest gets named “The Most Human Machine” and the confederate that wins is named the “Most Human Human.” These awards are given out annually even if no program actually wins the Turing Test.
Turing believed that if a couplet did ever “win the imitation game” they will have exhibited intelligence because he really viewed communication as the true test of being able to tell if something or someone was truly a human. One thing that we humans do and for the most part do well with is communicate. We communicate in a way that truly no other species can compare. Communication is our way of expressing ourselves, surviving and it is our way to connect with one another. So, if there is a program that can communicate in such a way that other humans would believe that they were speaking to a human like them then intelligence would be achieved. One modern day example of robots mostly effectively two-way communicating with humans is thorough the “chat” customer service option where people chat with sometimes programs but other times with a human.
Question 2: Beware of my Privacy
Jeroen van den Hoven dove into some of the issues that come with he violation of privacy in his essay “Nanotechonology and Privacy: The instructive case of RFID.” The essay basically introduced new and not so new devices and practices that draft sensitive information both knowingly and unknowingly from individuals. One of these pieces of technology is the “RFID” which stands for Radio Frequency Identity Chip. This small chip transmits a radio signal and was designed to track objects like our mail, packages, equipment and more. These chips are interesting in a way because they can be scanned or picked up from a distance because of the radio signal that they give off. But there are many people that will argue that there are issues with a piece of technology like this even without knowing the full capabilities of it.
There are issues with privacy not only with the RFID but with technology that we come into contact with daily. So what is the big deal? Why do people so called “want their privacy” while at the same time have the desire to share their life story on social media? From the outside looking in it really makes no sense at all but once you start thinking about your personal life then some of the more irrational parts seem to become just a little more clear. It really all boils down to consent. When individuals consent to share information then the issues with privacy seem to dwindle but when the individuals feel like they did not consent to sharing information that is when the issues with privacy seem to be more prevalent. We like to think that we have a choice about what we share as opposed to us not knowing and the information that is collected on us comes out and we find out on the back end. In addition to that, privacy or the lack of privacy is also more harmful when the information that is being collected is sensitive information like credit card information, social security numbers, medical records, etc. I think that violations of privacy are the most harmful in the cases of sensitive information because the information that is gathered, stolen or taken could really break a person down. That type of information could really mess up someones finances, disclose sensitive health secrets and can allow someone to steal their identity. I just think its a really strange phenomenon that we have. We want to feel like we have a choice.
We also expect a certain level of privacy in life. When we are in public we tend to expect less privacy from the outside and by that I mean we know people are seeing and evaluating our physical appearance and our conversations but when we are in private we expect more privacy because we have control over who is in that private area with us. We can either be by ourselves or surrounded by others. That is one of the reasons why privacy is most important and harmful when the individual does not know that their privacy is being invaded.
Question 5: What is AI? Or Who is AI?
Artificial Intelligence can be described with many words but to sum it al up… Artificial Intelligence is the field of study that studies and creates software and programs that are smart/intelligent. We call the information that these programs, software and machines emit “Artificial Intelligence.” The short film “Be Right Back” and the film “Ex Machina” are both films that shed light on Artificial Intelligence. I will call the being that exhibited forms of artificial intelligence in “Be Right Back” Ash 2.0 and the being that exhibited artificial intelligence in “Ex Machina” Ava. When given the opportunity to compare both Ash 2.0 and Ava, I have come to the conclusion that both Ava and Ash 2.0 are examples of artificial intelligence. It is hard to say one is more of artificial intelligence than the other because I believe that they both truly achieved artificial intelligence. The only difference between them was the purpose of the beings. Both Ash 2.0 and Ava served their purposes effectively. Ash. 2.0 was designed to comfort Martha during her loss of her boyfriend Ash. He was purposed to fill that void and emulate Ash in all ways possible. He was supposed to continue their relationship. On the other hand Ava was designed to sort of beat the judge in the Turing Test. She was supposed to be human. She was supposed to be able to think, look and communicate effectively enough that Caleb would believe that Ava was human. I think that both Ava and Ash 2.0 were both great examples of artificial intelligence because they are both forms of creative programming that are intelligent enough to hang with the humans.
Now, both Ash 2.0 and Ava had issues in the films and I won’t get into them because we all know what happened. But what happened in those films raised an important question. How responsible am I for the intelligent beings that I create. I will make the argument that we are fully responsible and morally obligated to fulfill those responsibilities because these man-made artificial beings are still just that man-made and while most of them are probably able to hold their own just like we are imperfect are creations are as well and we are responsible for their behavior. One example that I used in class earlier this semester was that parents are responsible for their children so why would the creators of things like Ava and Ash 2.0. From day one parents are not fully aware of what their children are capable of. They do not know that their children might grow up and kill someone and to that same effect they also do not know that their child might be the next world leader. The same with artificially intelligent beings. We do not know their full capabilities which should be even more reason for us to be responsible. These obligations should still be held even if they are not “natural” or “organic” beings. If no one is obligated to take responsibility for these beings then who will? Where should the blame be cast?
No comments:
Post a Comment