Artificial Intelligence Issues - Essay Example

? Turning test refers to the question whether machines can think. Additionally, this test also refers some kinds of behavioral tests for the presence of intelligence, thought, or mind. Searle (1980) defines the basic purpose of the Turing test is to construct a clear fundamental rules for determining the status of subjects of any species. More precisely, he considers it as a game having some possibilities of some arbitrary aspects. In this regard, unless one is agreed to the game rules, there can be no way to substantiate one’s case for or against a provided capacity with a dead certainty. Additionally, this test takes into account the presence and use of thought, mind or intelligence factors in machines and if machines are found with such capabilities that are similar to human mind and its unique functionalities, this presumes that the passing of such test would enable its relevancy to the above mentioned claim. However, proving such presumption cannot be taken for granted, its comparative assessment and resemblance with the human mind, thoughts or intelligence must be provided. Artificial Intelligence (AI) can be identified with strong and weak connotations. The weak AI is defined as a principal value of the computer in studying mind giving a very powerful tool. Additionally, with the use of weak AI, developing and testing of hypothesis can be carried out in a very precise and rigorous manner. On the other hand, according to the strong AI, the computer cannot be identified as a mere tool while studying mind; instead, it would not be incorrect to say that the appropriately programmed computer really is a mind in the sense that computers allocated with the right kind of programs can be recognized as having their own mind along with a capacity to understand things. In addition, due to the use of cognitive states in the programmed computers, the programs do not remain to be tools enabling to carry out testing of psychological descriptions; rather, the installed programs themselves are the descriptions or explanations. In order to demonstrate this fact, Searle (1980) provides a descriptive but detailed situation that took place in the Chinese room. First, he is provided with first batch of Chinese writing in the room. In the second batch, he is given the Chinese piece of writing along with the set of rules, which are written in the English language. With the use of rules, he is enabled to correlate the Chinese symbols with one set of symbols with another set of symbols. In the third batch, he is asked to correlate elements of the third batch with the symbols of the first two batches. Additionally, the set of rules requires him to construct batches in such a way that provide them some sort of shapes, which are provided in the third batch. Subsequently, the people outside the room define the first batch “a script”, second batch “a story” and third batch “questions.” In addition, the symbols which he gives them back in response to the third batch are identified as “answers to the questions” and the set of rules, which are given in English, are identified as “the program.” In order to further complicate this story, the people outside the room give him stories, questions and English in English and he becomes so good at writing the programs that for the outsiders it becomes very difficult to make distinction between my programs and the programs made by the native Chinese. As a result, he concludes while answering and developing programs from the Chinese symbols and elements that he has behaved like a computer by performing computational operations on formally specified elements. The Chinese room does observe some applications of the Turing test. For example, some symbols in the shape of Chinese languages are used along with a menu of rules that are needed to be followed. In the second batch of Chinese writing, a set of rules are provided for the purpose of correlating with the Chinese symbols. Additionally, the rules are provided in English language as Searle can easily understand English language and can correlate one set of symbols with another set of symbols. Although he cannot identify the Chinese writing without the use of rules provided in English, yet he becomes able to shape them into certain sort of symbols with the use of correlation. Some consequences may be deduced from the example of Chinese room and the system application. First, this Chinese room example provides that although the some features of the test are applied to the room, yet this test theory is unable to tell something solid about thinking that machine can carry out. However, it does highlight the fact that it is not about the machine that can really think but programs that can be used to further such applications and no program by itself claim to be sufficient for thinking. The Robot reply mentions the use of computer inside a robot along with Schank’s program. Additionally, this robot would not take the formal symbols as input or output formal symbols rather would operate the robot in such a way that performs the some functions such as walking, moving and along with a television camera, which can be used for the purpose of seeing. However, Searle contends that robot reply acknowledges that cognition is not just a matter of formal symbol manipulation since the robot reply incorporates causal relation with the external world. Additionally, by putting such perceptual or motor capabilities provides nothing by way of understanding or intentionality with regard to Schank’s original program as well. The Combination reply: It combines all the three replies into a single shape of description. For example, consider the computer programmed with all synapses of human brain; imagine the whole behavior of the robot is not distinguishable from the human behavior and imagine a robot having a brain-shaped computer lodged in its cranial cavity. Now, consider this entire set up as a unified system without just mentioning a computer with input and output symbols. However, Searle argues that even this set of combinations does not offer any help to the claims of the strong AI. For that, he defines that according to strong AI, instantiating a formal program along with the right input and output proves to be a sufficient condition rather is a constitutive of intentionality. In this regard, Newell (1979) contends that the essence of the mental is the operations of a physical system of symbols. But, the characteristics of the intentionality mentioned in this example totally lack the presence of the formal programs. Instead, they are based on assumptions that if the robot behaves or looks considerably or sufficiently like us, in that case, we would suppose that it must have some mental states similar to ours and that are expressed by the use of behavior along with an inner mechanism sufficient enough to such mental states. Searle highlights conditions necessary to claim that the machines can really think. First, he suggests that only very special kinds of machine, such as brains and machines having internal causal powers tantamount to those of brains. In this regard, he contends that due to this reason, strong AI is considerably insufficient to inform about thinking. Additionally, he argues that the discussion is not about the machines but programs. And, in this regard, he suggests that by its very nature no program is sufficient enough for the purpose of thinking. References Newell, A. (1973) Production systems: models of control structures. In: Visual information processing, ed. W. C. Chase. New York: Academic Press. Searle, R. J. (1980). Minds, brains and programs, “The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3, 417-457 Read More