Consider the following introduction lines regarding our main site

Artificial Intelligence Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people interested in the theoretical (including mathematical), philosophical, social, historical, and certain developmental and academic aspects of artificial intelligence.

What exactly is the philosophy that is related to artificial intelligence? I can understand the other aspects such as mathematical social historical aspects of artificial intelligence, but it is not known to me what is meant by the philosophical aspect of artificial intelligence.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ you should start with this audiobook: John Searle - Minds, Brains, and Programs 1984 also check this posts for give to you an idea what is meaning the philosophic aspects of artificial intelligence. $\endgroup$ Sep 30 at 5:50
  • $\begingroup$ As someone pointed out in a comment below, maybe it wasn't a good idea to migrate your question to meta, although you were mentioning something about our site and its scope. This question could indeed have been left on the main site, as it's about the "AI field" and not just our site, and the answers to it could indeed be useful to more people. $\endgroup$
    – nbro Mod
    Oct 8 at 0:57
  • $\begingroup$ One thing we could do is: you ask the same question again on the main site and we post our answers again there. Let me know what you would like to do and what are your thoughts. It was my bad to act so quickly in this case. So, if you decide to ask this question again on the site, let me know, and I can delete the old one (if not already deleted), and make sure you tag it with ai-field. $\endgroup$
    – nbro Mod
    Oct 8 at 1:01
  • $\begingroup$ @nbro No issue. I will do. $\endgroup$
    – hanugm
    Oct 9 at 11:25
  • $\begingroup$ Maybe it's better I get the feedback from all moderators before doing this. I will talk to them. It's also ok to have this question here. The question is: would this question be suitable for the main site?! $\endgroup$
    – nbro Mod
    Oct 9 at 11:55
  • $\begingroup$ It seems that the other moderators would agree that this question could also be asked on the main site. You don't have to delete it from here, but maybe you reformulate the question so that it doesn't focus much on the scope of our site, but more on the "AI field", i.e. ask a question as a person that is new to the field and doesn't know what the AI field has to do with philosophy. This is just my suggestion. Feel free to ask it differently or even not to ask the question again on the main site (as you already have answers to it). $\endgroup$
    – nbro Mod
    Oct 10 at 0:17

This is a new area of moral philosophy that only became non-hypothetical when we have the processing and memory to achieve strong-narrow superintelligence around 2015.

  • Neoluddism

I don't mean this in a strictly negative way, but in terms of the core principle, which can be summarized as:

New technologies create problems that cannot be predicted.

The classic example is the "blackening of London" due to pollution beginning in the 1660's. (See: Air Pollution in Industrializing England, Brimblecombe, 1978)

By contrast, the old-school Luddites got it wrong about the Jaquard looms.

Not hypothetical, and one can argue supportably that the present social dysfunction is a largely a function of automated algorithmic decisionmaking (See: Facebook, Youtube, et al.)

Key topics here involve voluntary human obsolescence—offloading not only repetitive tasks, but offloading competency and responsibility (militarized drones as an example.)

  • If strong Artificial General Intelligence is ever achieved, the question of personhood will become non-hypothetical

There was already an attempt to list an algorithm as an inventor on a patent, which was rejected because the algorithm is not a "natural person." (Thaler v. Hershfeld, 09/02/21)

This is a legal question but deeply philosophical. What does it mean to be a person?

  • The Grecian Room

I'm calling to change the unfortunate name of this thought experiment to something more consistent with the mythology of AI. (Phillip K. Dick, here understood as a narrative philosopher, wrote about the difference between xenoglossia and glossolalia, which comment on Searle, in regard to Ancient Greek specifically. [See VALIS trilogy.] Dick is a major narrative philosopher along with Asimov, Lem, and recently, Rajaniemi. Dick and Asimov have probably had more influence that Searle in the public understanding of AI. They use mythology of AI to explore social concepts in the manner of Plato.)

There are more examples, so others should answer as well if I've missed anything.

  • $\begingroup$ Why is "Chinese room" unfortunate? Actually, Chinese is a good example because it's written so differently from European languages. If it was a French room you could guess the meanings of many words. $\endgroup$
    – user253751
    Sep 30 at 9:21
  • $\begingroup$ @user253751 Because it is an extension of the trope that Chinese people are "inscrutable". The point about ancient Greek is that it's not a living language. $\endgroup$
    – DukeZhou Mod
    Oct 2 at 6:51
  • $\begingroup$ I think Greek is still spoken in Greece. Was the ancient version a completely different language? $\endgroup$
    – user253751
    Oct 4 at 9:24

The philosophical aspects of AI are related to the following arguments, issues, or questions.

  • Is it really possible to create an AGI?

  • Can a machine "think"?

    • (One of the first people who asked this question, although he correctly thought to be ambiguous, was Alan Turing, in his influencial paper, which describes the Turing test)
  • Can a machine be conscious and/or self-aware?

    • This raises the obvious question: what is consciousness and/or self-awareness, and could these "things" be implemented/replicated in software?
  • Can a machine have free will?

  • If we created an AGI, should we give "rights" to it?

  • Are humans and other animals (or organisms) also computers? Do we just compute or do we have something that isn't "just" computation?

  • Is intelligence just symbol manipulation?

  • If we created an AGI and it had the ability to self-improve, could it become so intelligent (i.e. become a super-intelligence) that we humans wouldn't understand anymore its intentions?

Some of these issues are very related. If you want to find more about this, you could read the related chapter in Norvig & Russell's book.

  • $\begingroup$ I think this question will be good to migrate again to AI.SE the title is not related to a specific question with ai.meta asking about topics of this website is more related to the AI field than meta. and also is a good question for AI.SE I like the answers maybe is a good idea move to AI.SE for people see. what do you think? $\endgroup$ Oct 3 at 17:54
  • $\begingroup$ @rubengavidia0x The question was asked in the context of our scope, i.e. it seemed to me that the OP wanted to understand about our scope, so that's why it was migrated to meta. However, I understand that it could have been left on the main the site, but it seemed to me to be too broad. It would be like asking "What are the theoretical aspects of the AI field (mentioned in description of our site)?". That would require us to give an overview of the field (which could lead to long answers, but not necessarily). $\endgroup$
    – nbro Mod
    Oct 3 at 20:36

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .