A.I.: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE OR AUTOMATED IMBECILITY? CAN MACHINES THINK AND FEEL?

A lecture by
Valdemar W. Setzer
Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of São Paulo, Brazil
www.ime.usp.br/~vwsetzer – this version: Jan. 10, 2022
See the ppt presentation of this lecture, and abstract, paper, book

ASSESSMENTS BY PARTICIPANTS

(Waiting for further responses)

1. Jan. 9, 2022, remote lecture for the MysTech organization, and interested people. Info: Andrew Linnell jandrewtogetherlinnell att gmail dot com. Questions: [1] What were the most important things that you have learned? [2] What are the biggest remaining doubts? [3] Comments. [4] What is your degree of satisfaction with this lecture? (1 - very unsatisfied, 5 - very satisfied: 2%; 4 - 25%; 3 - 25%). [5] Did you learn new things? (YR yes, relevant: 100%, YN yes, not relevant: 0%; NO 0%). My comments are preceeded by COMM.

  1. [1] I was surprised about 50% people surveyed thought humans were machines. Lecture was very thorough. [2] I have no doubt that machines are not human -it is the machine that makes interpretations that can affect me greatly and with which I cannot reason is horrifying. When man gives up his rights to machine it will/is scary. [3] Many want the comfort of machine and blindly follow what they are told. The ones running the machine put value on the human. Machines have no feeling/sensations but many people are emulating the machine with no feeling/sensations as they dull from tv, etc. Robots are being made now with facial expressions which will make us feel like they have thoughts. Yes, machines dont think /feel but we will be taught to believe that they do. The machine can make faces as it scans and makes assessments of our bodily functions-fooling us to believe that they are human-like. [4] 4. [5] YR. COMM.: Those about 50% were almost all college students. This is probably due to the fact that in general basic and college education tries to force students to be materialists - their teachers and professors are. Note that many people belong to religious confessions but think only materialistically, that is, they think only in physical terms. Please note that no machine of instrument is neutral. Take a hammer in you hand. What do you think? On hammering nails and other things, that is, violent actions. You don't think in caressing someone with the hammer. Take a pillow in your hands. What do you think? On calm, rest, relaxation. In fact, nothing is neutral in relation to human beings, because we incorporate all our experiences, and they end up influencing ourselves, even if just slightly. The way to react against the influence of machines is using them consciously and for the good. What is destroying nature and humans (including psychological influences)? Religions fundamentalism? No, but bad uses of technology! Give a look at my paper "The mision of technology":
    https://www.ime.usp.br/~vwsetzer/technol-mission.html
    In particular, results of Machine "Learning" systems that affect humans or society should only be used after having been examined by some persons. For instance, medical diagnosis. Yes, robots can mimic our facial expressions, but they feel absolutely nothing and, as I showed, will never have sensations and feelings. People will believe they are human-like if they don't understand how they work - and how humans work!
  2. [1] the difference between the function of a syntax machine and understanding. the generation of parameters in "machine learning" and the lack of transparency in how results are generated. [2] how to effectively describe the mental health issues that cause some to posit that machines can think and feel and eventually surpass human capabilities with creativity. [3] very illuminating and well presented and organized. [4] 5. [5] YR. COMM. There is a mystery in the fact that it is impossible to prove physically in detail what we think, feel and will. I think there is a mystery here. This preserves our freedom. For instance, if it would be possible to prove physically that humans have non-physical members, everybody would be forced to admit that there are non-physical phenomena. This leaves to each human the possibility of freely choosing what I call "Fundamental existential hypothesis": there are only physical matter and processes in the world, or there also exist non-physical "matter" and processes. After freely adopting one of them, the person should think and act accordingly, that is, being coherent. Fortunately, most materialists are not coherent, e.g. they admit free will, which makes no physical sense. But I think my arguments can be expounded to everyone.
  3. [1] That freedom can be found in thinking by choices we have if I understood properly. [2-3] [Nothing] [4] 5. [5] YR. COMM.: Thinking may be used as a means of experiencing free will, e.g. by consciously choosing between two different possibilities (as in my example of imagining two arbitrary numbers on a display, and then concentrating the thoughts on the image of just in one) that have nothing to do with past experience, inner impulses, etc. One has to have the sensation that nothing imposes the choice of the chosen number. Materialists will argue that our unconscious determines which number to choose. But this is an unprovable statement, a speculation. Physically, where is the unconscious and how it affects us? Our experience is that we are really free in choosing the number to imagine.
  4. [1] wow, the % of people who believe that humans are machines! [2] the speed and unquestioning ramping up of tech and virtual reality. the concerns for youth ... shocking to learn how many parents took their children to see the films you mentioned. [3] [Nothing]. [4] 3. [5] YR. COMM.: See the comments to assessment 1. One should recognize the efforts made by our "civilization" to impose the materialist conception of the world and of humans. I consider the two films (AI and The bicentennial man) actions in this direction. In particular, those efforts are being concentrated on children and adolescents (case of AI). That's one of the influences of electronic media. I'm surprised that I could not find an English translation of the extraordinary book by neuroscientist Michel Desmurget La fabrique du crétin digital (The factory of digital imbeciles) - I read the original, have its translation into Portuguese (it does not contain the postface) and found on Amazon only translations into Spanish and Italian. I wonder if it contradicts so much what most people think about electronic media that no American press is interested in publishing it…:
    https://www.amazon.com/Books-Michel-Desmurget/s?rh=n%3A283155%2Cp_27%3AMichel+Desmurget