Zombies

1
00:00:00,049 --> 00:00:01,759
Are robots, zombies?
2
00:00:03,109 --> 00:00:07,250
This might seem like a strange
question at first, but it leads to
3
00:00:07,250 --> 00:00:12,740
one of the most important questions in
science today: what is consciousness
4
00:00:13,430 --> 00:00:15,680
and can robot's become conscious?
5
00:00:16,550 --> 00:00:18,949
These questions fascinate many people.
6
00:00:19,249 --> 00:00:24,439
And when Blake Lemoine suggested
that Google's latest AI Lambda
7
00:00:24,589 --> 00:00:28,999
had become sentient, it triggered
a worldwide media frenzy.
8
00:00:29,900 --> 00:00:36,849
In this HRI podcast episode, I talk with
Jack Copeland about machine consciousness.
9
00:00:57,870 --> 00:01:00,420
Jack, what do you do at the university?
10
00:01:00,470 --> 00:01:04,580
I teach philosophy of computing,
philosophy of mind, logic,
11
00:01:04,720 --> 00:01:08,232
philosophical logic and a few
bits of history of philosophy.
12
00:01:08,488 --> 00:01:09,428
What is consciousness?
13
00:01:09,568 --> 00:01:11,468
A very good question, Christoph.
14
00:01:11,646 --> 00:01:13,056
If only we knew the answer.
15
00:01:13,726 --> 00:01:15,816
To spoil the plot: we don't know.
16
00:01:15,846 --> 00:01:19,107
It's too early in the
trajectory of science to have
17
00:01:19,107 --> 00:01:20,575
an answer to that question.
18
00:01:20,575 --> 00:01:24,979
Just as how it was too early to have
an answer to the question, what is life
19
00:01:25,039 --> 00:01:27,304
500 years ago or a thousand years ago.
20
00:01:27,734 --> 00:01:31,605
We have to wait for some, significant
scientific progress before we can
21
00:01:31,875 --> 00:01:33,375
give the answer to that question.
22
00:01:33,645 --> 00:01:36,325
But nevertheless, there are some
very interesting things that we can
23
00:01:36,330 --> 00:01:41,436
say about it, right here and now
and a preliminary observation is
24
00:01:41,436 --> 00:01:43,485
that it's an ambiguous question.
25
00:01:43,515 --> 00:01:44,715
What is consciousness.
26
00:01:44,715 --> 00:01:49,365
Simply because the word conscious
is ambiguous in English.
27
00:01:49,443 --> 00:01:52,406
It has different meanings, like
the word bank, it could mean
28
00:01:52,473 --> 00:01:53,804
at least two different things.
29
00:01:53,848 --> 00:01:58,398
And with consciousness, if you say
that some creature is conscious.
30
00:01:58,436 --> 00:02:02,109
You may just be saying it's awake and
functioning, there's the conscious
31
00:02:02,499 --> 00:02:06,854
unconscious distinction and, somebody is
unconscious because they're asleep and
32
00:02:06,859 --> 00:02:10,734
then they're alarm clock goes and they're
conscious, they're awake and functioning.
33
00:02:11,024 --> 00:02:13,514
So that's one sense of conscious,
but I suspect that wasn't
34
00:02:13,514 --> 00:02:14,654
what you were asking about.
35
00:02:14,934 --> 00:02:19,094
No, I think I've got the more
complicated concept in mind.
36
00:02:19,584 --> 00:02:22,897
There's a range actually of
more complicated concepts.
37
00:02:22,907 --> 00:02:26,492
One that we all talk about all
the time is self-conscious.
38
00:02:26,982 --> 00:02:31,332
If you say something is conscious, you
may be meaning that it's self-conscious.
39
00:02:31,337 --> 00:02:35,566
That not only observes and
understands the world, but it also
40
00:02:35,566 --> 00:02:37,706
observes and understands itself.
41
00:02:37,734 --> 00:02:41,872
And obviously humans are self-conscious
and maybe some other primates.
42
00:02:41,916 --> 00:02:48,922
Perhaps even dogs and cats, but, as you
go further down the tree bats or swans or
43
00:02:48,935 --> 00:02:53,645
raccoons or something, they may well be
conscious without being self-conscious.
44
00:02:53,645 --> 00:02:58,066
They may perceive the world without
kind of perceiving themselves as
45
00:02:58,066 --> 00:03:00,076
agents interacting with the world.
46
00:03:00,108 --> 00:03:03,738
Self consciousness, consciousness
in that sense kind of Peters
47
00:03:03,743 --> 00:03:07,227
out as you get further and
further away from human beings.
48
00:03:07,647 --> 00:03:10,107
But maybe that wasn't what
you were asking about either.
49
00:03:10,287 --> 00:03:13,167
No, I suspect there's
an even deeper meaning.
50
00:03:14,647 --> 00:03:19,451
When the question is, is it possible
to build an artificial intelligence,
51
00:03:19,451 --> 00:03:21,641
a robot say that's conscious?
52
00:03:21,708 --> 00:03:25,682
I think probably when people ask that
question, they don't mean either of the
53
00:03:25,682 --> 00:03:27,293
sences that we've just talked about.
54
00:03:27,323 --> 00:03:32,197
Because obviously a robot could easily
be described as being asleep or being,
55
00:03:32,197 --> 00:03:34,044
fully awake and fully functioning.
56
00:03:34,136 --> 00:03:38,310
Maybe when it plugs itself into
its niche to regenerate overnight,
57
00:03:38,676 --> 00:03:42,573
it powers down most of its
perceptual and cognitive system.
58
00:03:42,604 --> 00:03:44,134
There's some analog of sleeping.
59
00:03:44,221 --> 00:03:47,930
And then, when it boots itself up again
in the morning, it's fully functioning.
60
00:03:47,935 --> 00:03:49,155
So it is now conscious.
61
00:03:49,155 --> 00:03:53,544
It would be easy enough to imagine a
future, not so distant in which there
62
00:03:53,544 --> 00:03:55,254
are robots that behave in that way.
63
00:03:55,604 --> 00:03:59,464
In one sense they would be conscious,
but that's this first sense of
64
00:03:59,464 --> 00:04:00,824
consciousness that we talked about.
65
00:04:00,825 --> 00:04:04,525
The much more interesting sense of
conscious, which is much harder to
66
00:04:04,525 --> 00:04:09,350
see how an artificially intelligent
robot could be conscious in
67
00:04:09,350 --> 00:04:12,846
this sense is having sensations.
68
00:04:12,855 --> 00:04:17,440
That's the third sense of consciousness
and it's different from the other two.
69
00:04:17,571 --> 00:04:19,976
And we are all conscious in that sense.
70
00:04:19,976 --> 00:04:24,596
We know from the inside the phenomenon
of consciousness in this third sense.
71
00:04:24,614 --> 00:04:29,438
If you just look up into a clear
blue sky there's that unmistakable
72
00:04:29,708 --> 00:04:32,663
sensation the perceiving of blueness.
73
00:04:33,143 --> 00:04:38,046
Or if you hold your hand over a candle
flame, then you get that mild feeling
74
00:04:38,046 --> 00:04:40,246
of pain that, we all know so well.
75
00:04:40,846 --> 00:04:45,496
And it's in the third sense, it's the
ability to have feelings, sensations like
76
00:04:45,496 --> 00:04:47,909
that, that constitutes consciousness.
77
00:04:47,980 --> 00:04:51,291
Psychologists and philosophers
have a sort of fancy technical
78
00:04:51,291 --> 00:04:53,151
term for these sensations.
79
00:04:53,151 --> 00:04:54,391
They call them Qualia.
80
00:04:54,861 --> 00:04:58,116
It's a Latin word, I think And so
you can talk about the Qualia of
81
00:04:58,116 --> 00:05:01,176
pain and the Qualia of blueness.
82
00:05:01,176 --> 00:05:04,426
There can be smell
Qualia and taste Qualia.
83
00:05:04,496 --> 00:05:07,668
So consciousness in this
sense is to have Qualia.
84
00:05:07,668 --> 00:05:11,808
You might well ask, could a
robot be designed to have Qualia.
85
00:05:12,108 --> 00:05:16,703
So I suspect that when people ask whether
an AI can be conscious, it's this third
86
00:05:16,708 --> 00:05:18,653
sense that they've usually got in mind.
87
00:05:20,393 --> 00:05:23,813
By coming back to the question
about consciousness itself.
88
00:05:23,843 --> 00:05:29,187
You mentioned there's this strange
situation where we all intuitively know
89
00:05:29,187 --> 00:05:33,297
what we mean but we still can't define it.
90
00:05:34,557 --> 00:05:36,747
People get a bit hung up on definitions.
91
00:05:36,758 --> 00:05:38,354
We can't define most things.
92
00:05:38,624 --> 00:05:40,257
Definitions are a luxury.
93
00:05:40,258 --> 00:05:42,717
Some words you can define perfectly well.
94
00:05:42,786 --> 00:05:45,769
An example that often gets
used in the literature is the
95
00:05:45,769 --> 00:05:47,654
concept of being a bachelor.
96
00:05:47,727 --> 00:05:50,110
You can give a nice
crisp definition of that.
97
00:05:50,112 --> 00:05:52,477
It's an unmarried person
of marriageable age.
98
00:05:53,017 --> 00:05:57,997
But definitions like that, crisp sharp
definitions, are quite hard to come by.
99
00:05:58,079 --> 00:06:01,509
For example, try and come up
with a definition of a game.
100
00:06:01,509 --> 00:06:04,418
This is a well known philosophical
challenge that goes back to
101
00:06:04,418 --> 00:06:05,968
a guy called Wittgenstein.
102
00:06:07,248 --> 00:06:09,348
Back in the middle of the 20th century.
103
00:06:09,478 --> 00:06:13,345
He was making the point that, I'm
repeating now that definitions are a bit
104
00:06:13,350 --> 00:06:17,348
of a luxury, and there are many words
that we understand perfectly well that
105
00:06:17,353 --> 00:06:19,928
you can't define in a nice crisp way.
106
00:06:20,318 --> 00:06:22,358
And his favorite example was "game".
107
00:06:22,748 --> 00:06:28,023
And it's a challenge, you think you
can define the word game, then come
108
00:06:28,023 --> 00:06:31,593
up with a definition that catches
all and only those things that we're
109
00:06:31,593 --> 00:06:33,393
naturally inclined to call games.
110
00:06:33,633 --> 00:06:35,523
And I think you'll probably
find you can't do it.
111
00:06:35,556 --> 00:06:38,436
I wouldn't worry too much
about defining consciousness.
112
00:06:38,500 --> 00:06:42,610
It's no doubt one of those very
many extremely useful terms
113
00:06:42,640 --> 00:06:44,238
that actually we can't define.
114
00:06:44,309 --> 00:06:47,922
But stepping aside from the sort
of definition issue, we all know
115
00:06:47,927 --> 00:06:51,472
what consciousness in the third
of the senses that I staked out.
116
00:06:51,501 --> 00:06:53,541
Because we all have sensations.
117
00:06:53,582 --> 00:06:56,808
When you have your lunch, you
have, a zillion sensations.
118
00:06:56,808 --> 00:07:00,828
There's the taste of the soup and the
taste of the coffee and the sound of
119
00:07:00,828 --> 00:07:03,078
the cutlery chinking against your plate.
120
00:07:03,128 --> 00:07:04,478
The waiter's voice.
121
00:07:04,478 --> 00:07:08,423
And the brightness and the feeling
of warmth from the sun and so on.
122
00:07:08,663 --> 00:07:10,283
We all know this stuff intimately.
123
00:07:10,283 --> 00:07:13,858
It's just every day and every day
accompaniment everything we do.
124
00:07:14,188 --> 00:07:17,771
So they're Qualia, they're conscious
experiences, we know what they are.
125
00:07:18,641 --> 00:07:21,003
We don't have a scientific theory of them.
126
00:07:21,003 --> 00:07:26,363
To take an analogy, if you think of
fire and you go back kind of 600 years.
127
00:07:26,401 --> 00:07:29,141
They all knew what fire
was perfectly well.
128
00:07:29,167 --> 00:07:33,366
But they didn't have a scientific
theory of what fire was.
129
00:07:33,428 --> 00:07:37,651
In that sense, they didn't know what
fire was, they could point to fires
130
00:07:37,651 --> 00:07:42,391
and talk about fires and distinguish
between fires and non fires and
131
00:07:42,691 --> 00:07:47,341
describe what fire is useful for and
think up new uses for fire and so on.
132
00:07:47,341 --> 00:07:48,241
They could do all of that.
133
00:07:48,541 --> 00:07:51,601
But in some sense, they didn't know
what fire was because they didn't
134
00:07:51,601 --> 00:07:53,791
have a scientific theory of fire.
135
00:07:54,041 --> 00:07:59,141
The theory of gases came along later
and by the time of kind of Isaac Newton,
136
00:07:59,141 --> 00:08:00,971
they knew very well what fire was.
137
00:08:01,421 --> 00:08:06,319
Consciousness is like that we know what
it is from the inside, but we don't
138
00:08:06,319 --> 00:08:08,209
have a scientific theory of it yet.
139
00:08:09,559 --> 00:08:11,539
Is consciousness intelligence.
140
00:08:12,319 --> 00:08:16,207
No, no intelligence and
consciousness are different.
141
00:08:16,267 --> 00:08:20,815
You can imagine a robot that is
intelligent maybe marketed as an
142
00:08:20,815 --> 00:08:24,141
intelligent robot and it maybe
people take them home and they work
143
00:08:24,141 --> 00:08:28,227
as a Butler, they do the cleaning
and do the shopping and entertain
144
00:08:28,227 --> 00:08:30,789
the kids and, et cetera, et cetera.
145
00:08:30,789 --> 00:08:32,139
So they're intelligent.
146
00:08:32,229 --> 00:08:35,572
But you can imagine that the
lights not on inside, they
147
00:08:35,572 --> 00:08:38,392
don't actually have sensations.
148
00:08:38,392 --> 00:08:41,331
They're not aware of the
world in the way that we are.
149
00:08:41,581 --> 00:08:45,294
These imaginary robots, they
have sensors, they can find
150
00:08:45,294 --> 00:08:46,704
their way around in the world.
151
00:08:46,794 --> 00:08:52,716
They can detect sounds and respond to you,
telling it to cook a Curry or something.
152
00:08:53,116 --> 00:08:54,676
They don't bump into the walls.
153
00:08:54,676 --> 00:08:58,366
They've got laser sensors that
enable them to navigate around and
154
00:08:58,666 --> 00:09:00,736
perform very delicate operations.
155
00:09:00,736 --> 00:09:03,406
In some sense they can
definitely sense the world.
156
00:09:03,427 --> 00:09:06,744
But for these robots that I'm
imagining what's happening is that
157
00:09:06,814 --> 00:09:12,154
kind of light flows into their optical
sensors and they process it and
158
00:09:12,211 --> 00:09:16,943
pressure information flows from their
tactile sensors and they process it.
159
00:09:17,093 --> 00:09:19,013
It's all just number crunching in the end.
160
00:09:19,029 --> 00:09:22,869
These robots that I'm imagining
don't actually have sensations
161
00:09:22,869 --> 00:09:23,739
in the way that we do.
162
00:09:23,769 --> 00:09:27,099
They don't have Qualia to bring
back that term I used earlier.
163
00:09:27,155 --> 00:09:28,565
So they are intelligent.
164
00:09:28,574 --> 00:09:32,354
Maybe they can even prove novel
theorems in mathematics and so on.
165
00:09:32,354 --> 00:09:35,757
Maybe one of these robots proves
a theorum, that's been puzzling
166
00:09:35,757 --> 00:09:37,917
mathematicians for centuries.
167
00:09:38,367 --> 00:09:41,187
You definitely wanna say they're
intelligent, but it's another
168
00:09:41,187 --> 00:09:42,807
question, whether they're conscious.
169
00:09:42,807 --> 00:09:44,367
It's a completely different question.
170
00:09:44,395 --> 00:09:48,696
Do they have these Qualia,
these sensations that we have
171
00:09:48,696 --> 00:09:49,926
and are so familiar with?
172
00:09:50,106 --> 00:09:50,736
Maybe not.
173
00:09:50,736 --> 00:09:55,618
You can easily imagine a robot that
is intelligent and, maybe even behaves
174
00:09:55,715 --> 00:10:00,395
indistinguishably from a human being,
but nevertheless doesn't have Qualia.
175
00:10:02,375 --> 00:10:06,725
And what are the current most
promising models for consciousness?
176
00:10:07,575 --> 00:10:11,785
Again, you've got to be aware of
the ambiguity of consciousness.
177
00:10:11,803 --> 00:10:16,331
If you pick the first or the second
sense that I mentioned awake versus
178
00:10:16,331 --> 00:10:21,265
asleep and self-conscious, self-aware,
there are certainly models of these two.
179
00:10:21,274 --> 00:10:24,335
As I was saying, it's the third
one, that's the interesting one.
180
00:10:24,335 --> 00:10:26,941
So I guess maybe you're asking
what are the most promising
181
00:10:26,946 --> 00:10:29,340
models for the having of Qualia.
182
00:10:29,830 --> 00:10:32,290
And the answer is we don't
really have any models yet.
183
00:10:32,290 --> 00:10:36,632
It's too early in the science of
this subject, even to have models.
184
00:10:36,703 --> 00:10:40,954
We are really pretty ignorant of what
consciousness in this third sense.
185
00:10:40,975 --> 00:10:44,817
In, in the scientific sense and,
we utterly lack a theory of it.
186
00:10:44,913 --> 00:10:46,473
There just aren't any models.
187
00:10:46,525 --> 00:10:51,420
We don't we don't even know to
what extent consciousness is
188
00:10:51,420 --> 00:10:53,638
physical in this third sense.
189
00:10:53,656 --> 00:10:59,716
People divide on whether Qualia are
some kind of non-physical process,
190
00:11:00,646 --> 00:11:03,286
which is caused by physical processes.
191
00:11:03,350 --> 00:11:05,700
There are other physical
processes going on in the brain.
192
00:11:05,763 --> 00:11:10,676
Currents moving around and ions
passing across synapses and so on.
193
00:11:10,676 --> 00:11:14,189
According to some people, all
this kind of physical chemical
194
00:11:14,249 --> 00:11:18,999
activity in the brain and in the
neurons of the brain causes Qualia.
195
00:11:18,999 --> 00:11:22,750
But the Qualia themselves are
non-physical, they're totally different
196
00:11:23,170 --> 00:11:26,980
from the physical goings on, in the brain
they're caused by the physical goings on.
197
00:11:26,997 --> 00:11:29,525
But they're different from
the physical goings on.
198
00:11:30,005 --> 00:11:33,660
So that's one, you can't really
even call it a theory cause
199
00:11:33,660 --> 00:11:35,100
it's not well developed enough.
200
00:11:35,100 --> 00:11:35,968
It's a guess.
201
00:11:36,298 --> 00:11:39,868
There's one guess as to
how consciousness might be.
202
00:11:39,898 --> 00:11:42,659
And other people say and again,
they're just guessing they
203
00:11:42,664 --> 00:11:44,318
say no we live in a physical.
204
00:11:44,319 --> 00:11:45,804
Everything's physical, isn't it?
205
00:11:45,804 --> 00:11:47,720
So consciousness must be physical.
206
00:11:48,080 --> 00:11:52,329
It's not just that consciousness is
caused by physical processes in the brain.
207
00:11:52,329 --> 00:11:56,017
But consciousness must itself be
a physical process in the brain.
208
00:11:56,897 --> 00:11:59,997
There are two guesses as
to what consciousness is.
209
00:12:00,047 --> 00:12:03,497
We just don't know which
one is right at the moment.
210
00:12:03,497 --> 00:12:07,463
As science progress progresses,
I'm sure that we will get to know
211
00:12:07,463 --> 00:12:09,401
which of those sketches is correct.
212
00:12:09,401 --> 00:12:12,581
And we'll get to know a
lot more scientific detail
213
00:12:12,581 --> 00:12:14,021
about the nature of Qualia.
214
00:12:14,081 --> 00:12:16,841
But right now we don't know
it and we might have to work
215
00:12:16,841 --> 00:12:18,881
quite a time conceivably.
216
00:12:19,281 --> 00:12:24,661
Maybe even 500 years or a thousand years
or something before there is a viable,
217
00:12:24,661 --> 00:12:27,181
scientific model of consciousness.
218
00:12:27,251 --> 00:12:29,941
It's a bit like the
question, what is matter?
219
00:12:30,371 --> 00:12:33,531
The ancient Greeks had definitely
thought of that question and were
220
00:12:33,531 --> 00:12:38,191
very interested in it and speculated
wildly about the nature of matter.
221
00:12:38,401 --> 00:12:39,541
But they were just guessing.
222
00:12:39,911 --> 00:12:43,811
It was several thousand years
later before science got really
223
00:12:43,816 --> 00:12:46,001
worked out as to what matter is.
224
00:12:46,051 --> 00:12:50,873
The atomic theory and kind of subatomic
particles and all of that people were
225
00:12:51,203 --> 00:12:56,093
speculating about what matter is thousands
of years before the answers arrived.
226
00:12:56,423 --> 00:13:00,813
So I suspect it may well be not
dissimilar in the case of consciousness.
227
00:13:01,153 --> 00:13:05,053
Right now we are like the ancient
Greeks asking what is matter.
228
00:13:05,083 --> 00:13:09,193
We're asking what is consciousness
and it may well be hundreds or even
229
00:13:09,603 --> 00:13:13,843
thousands of years before science is able
to deliver an answer to that question.
230
00:13:24,072 --> 00:13:28,117
I assume that you've been
working and thinking about this
231
00:13:28,117 --> 00:13:30,007
problem for quite some time.
232
00:13:30,787 --> 00:13:36,127
Is it not frustrating that we
have this lack of understanding?
233
00:13:37,147 --> 00:13:39,042
No I don't find it frustrating.
234
00:13:39,070 --> 00:13:40,491
I'd love to know the answer.
235
00:13:40,491 --> 00:13:40,971
Obviously.
236
00:13:40,971 --> 00:13:45,502
I think anyone who's thought about
consciousness desires to know the answer.
237
00:13:45,502 --> 00:13:47,443
That's why you think about
it in the first place.
238
00:13:47,443 --> 00:13:48,371
But frustrating.
239
00:13:48,371 --> 00:13:50,579
No, science is a slow business.
240
00:13:50,609 --> 00:13:54,879
The way science progresses is that
somebody thinks up a new question, a
241
00:13:54,879 --> 00:13:59,079
really difficult question that kind of
nobody's really thought about before
242
00:13:59,619 --> 00:14:01,719
and somehow answering that question.
243
00:14:02,039 --> 00:14:05,338
Sort of like a quantum
leap forwards in science.
244
00:14:05,678 --> 00:14:10,088
It takes quite a while between
the question being posed and
245
00:14:10,088 --> 00:14:12,128
the answer being produced.
246
00:14:12,178 --> 00:14:14,813
It could well be the
same with consciousness.
247
00:14:15,203 --> 00:14:18,828
People have been asking the question
for a long time and we're not really
248
00:14:18,828 --> 00:14:20,628
that much closer to answering it.
249
00:14:21,138 --> 00:14:26,314
In the end, the answers come and quite
often answers to these hard questions,
250
00:14:26,314 --> 00:14:28,894
transform science in the process.
251
00:14:29,434 --> 00:14:31,804
I suspect it may be the
same with consciousness.
252
00:14:33,754 --> 00:14:36,814
Do you think machines can be conscious?
253
00:14:36,881 --> 00:14:39,481
I kind of think humans are
machines, aren't they?
254
00:14:39,481 --> 00:14:44,531
We're biological machines, we're very
complicated, we're delightful machines.
255
00:14:44,841 --> 00:14:49,610
We're not the sort of, doll hard machines
that you find in factories and so on.
256
00:14:49,693 --> 00:14:53,293
We're very interesting soft
machines, but machines,
257
00:14:53,298 --> 00:14:55,020
nevertheless and we are conscious.
258
00:14:55,020 --> 00:14:57,803
So there's, that seems a
quick answer to the question.
259
00:14:57,803 --> 00:15:01,583
Can a machine be conscious if you think
humans are machines, and why wouldn't
260
00:15:01,583 --> 00:15:04,175
you, then yes, machines can be conscious.
261
00:15:05,835 --> 00:15:09,875
Is machine consciousness the
same as human consciousness?
262
00:15:09,948 --> 00:15:14,559
That's getting back to the ambiguity of
the English word consciousness again.
263
00:15:14,561 --> 00:15:18,861
You tell me which of the meanings of
consciousness you are inquiring about.
264
00:15:19,291 --> 00:15:23,101
Then I might be able to say more about
your question, but if you're saying is
265
00:15:23,101 --> 00:15:28,804
consciousness in the sense of having
Qualia the same for humans as for
266
00:15:28,804 --> 00:15:31,247
machines, then the answer's got to be yes.
267
00:15:31,247 --> 00:15:35,763
Humans have Qualia and the question
is do machines have Qualia or not?
268
00:15:36,243 --> 00:15:39,103
So it's the same phenomenon in each case.
269
00:15:39,163 --> 00:15:43,003
We know that humans have Qualia
and the question is, could you
270
00:15:43,003 --> 00:15:44,831
build a robot that has Qualia?
271
00:15:44,831 --> 00:15:48,783
So it's certainly not a different sense
of consciousness it's having Qualia,
272
00:15:49,233 --> 00:15:56,748
I guess my question goes in the direction
of, does a machine have to work in
273
00:15:56,748 --> 00:16:03,108
the exact same way as a human does to
achieve consciousness or could a machine
274
00:16:03,288 --> 00:16:08,728
be a black box that somehow works
differently and would still be conscious?
275
00:16:08,750 --> 00:16:13,694
We know so little about consciousness
that you can only speculate about
276
00:16:13,724 --> 00:16:15,794
the answers to questions like those.
277
00:16:16,364 --> 00:16:21,044
What physical processes produce
consciousness in human beings?
278
00:16:21,049 --> 00:16:22,034
We don't really know.
279
00:16:22,424 --> 00:16:26,425
We assume it's stuff that goes on
in the brain on the nervous system.
280
00:16:26,425 --> 00:16:30,904
We assume that it's that consciousness is
somehow the outcome of neural activity.
281
00:16:30,975 --> 00:16:32,415
Electrochemical activity.
282
00:16:32,464 --> 00:16:33,460
We assume that.
283
00:16:33,540 --> 00:16:37,560
Is the having of Qualia kind of
bound up with having the sort of
284
00:16:37,590 --> 00:16:42,243
neurochemistry that we do or could
an entity that has a completely
285
00:16:42,248 --> 00:16:45,363
different chemistry also have Qualia.
286
00:16:45,643 --> 00:16:51,013
Or maybe Qualia could be produced
by a process that's sort of
287
00:16:51,163 --> 00:16:52,889
independent of chemistry.
288
00:16:52,891 --> 00:16:57,541
Maybe just running an algorithm,
maybe just doing computations would
289
00:16:57,541 --> 00:16:59,561
be another way of producing Qualia.
290
00:16:59,587 --> 00:17:04,177
In ours, it's presumably produced by
chemical changes but in some other
291
00:17:04,177 --> 00:17:09,277
kind of entity could qu be produced
simply by carrying out computations,
292
00:17:09,354 --> 00:17:13,674
no matter what the device that carries
out those computations is made of.
293
00:17:13,757 --> 00:17:18,016
It could be, made of kind of modern
hardware or it could be made of
294
00:17:18,084 --> 00:17:21,874
1950s vacuum tubes, completely
different physics and chemistry.
295
00:17:22,234 --> 00:17:26,747
So long as it's doing the same
computations then maybe it's conscious.
296
00:17:26,777 --> 00:17:29,832
No matter what it's underlying
physics and chemistry is.
297
00:17:30,132 --> 00:17:31,482
Could be, nobody knows.
298
00:17:31,482 --> 00:17:34,764
There's two different views
of the origination of Qualia.
299
00:17:35,244 --> 00:17:40,979
Qualia are originated by neurochemical
processes specific to the kind of
300
00:17:40,979 --> 00:17:45,848
chemistry and biology that we have versus
this other view of the origin of Qualia
301
00:17:45,868 --> 00:17:51,440
they're brought about by computations
where the computations are the same, no
302
00:17:51,440 --> 00:17:56,165
matter what physics or chemistry of the
underlying device that's producing them.
303
00:17:56,465 --> 00:17:59,947
So it's two different theories
of the Genesis of consciousness.
304
00:17:59,947 --> 00:18:01,637
Nobody knows which one's true.
305
00:18:01,637 --> 00:18:05,551
But they're both extremely interesting
theories with their own implications.
306
00:18:07,461 --> 00:18:10,381
How can we tell if a person is conscious?
307
00:18:10,427 --> 00:18:14,505
I just look at you and you smile
and you've got intelligent eyes and
308
00:18:14,835 --> 00:18:19,335
it wouldn't normally occur to me to
think that you were not conscious.
309
00:18:19,432 --> 00:18:22,339
If you press the point
or we've got a colleague.
310
00:18:22,339 --> 00:18:26,462
And we're genuinely not sure whether
they're conscious, maybe they had a,
311
00:18:26,476 --> 00:18:30,508
some strange brain surgery or something,
and they're a little bit changed
312
00:18:30,508 --> 00:18:32,758
when they come back to the campus.
313
00:18:32,808 --> 00:18:37,143
There is a conversation about
whether this person still has Qualia.
314
00:18:37,413 --> 00:18:40,658
They're still highly functional and
can give their lectures and so on.
315
00:18:40,658 --> 00:18:44,048
But maybe as a result of their
strange brain surgery, they've
316
00:18:44,053 --> 00:18:48,100
lost the ability to have Maybe this
is a real topic of conversation.
317
00:18:48,103 --> 00:18:52,483
How could we settle the issue of whether
this colleague really has qualia?
318
00:18:53,053 --> 00:18:53,803
Difficult?
319
00:18:53,963 --> 00:18:58,594
If you're really serious about does
person X have Qualia, how could we test?
320
00:18:58,634 --> 00:19:03,404
If I had a colleague in this situation
I would feel I wanted to give them the
321
00:19:03,404 --> 00:19:07,663
benefit of the doubt, if they still
behaved after the surgery and much the
322
00:19:07,663 --> 00:19:09,986
same way as they did before the surgery.
323
00:19:10,033 --> 00:19:14,174
I would as assume that they're
still conscious, I don't wouldn't
324
00:19:14,174 --> 00:19:17,978
know how could I know because
consciousness is this inner experience.
325
00:19:18,768 --> 00:19:22,288
I can't have any direct
contact with their Qualia.
326
00:19:22,344 --> 00:19:24,096
Their Qualia are private to them.
327
00:19:24,098 --> 00:19:28,792
If their behavior and all the rest of
it remained the same after the surgery,
328
00:19:29,152 --> 00:19:33,569
I would just assume that they could
still feel pain and feel pleasure.
329
00:19:33,999 --> 00:19:39,370
I avoid doing things, which before the
surgery would've caused them pain and
330
00:19:39,370 --> 00:19:43,433
I would seek to do things generally,
which kind of could be expected
331
00:19:43,433 --> 00:19:45,254
to make them feel happy and so on.
332
00:19:45,280 --> 00:19:48,220
I couldn't know whether they
were really feeling pain or not.
333
00:19:48,229 --> 00:19:49,667
But I would put the benefit of the doubt.
334
00:19:50,307 --> 00:19:53,254
This question that you've asked
how could you tell whether
335
00:19:53,325 --> 00:19:55,335
whether something is conscious?
336
00:19:55,456 --> 00:19:57,076
It's a very interesting question.
337
00:19:57,076 --> 00:19:59,446
In the first sense of conscious,
like how could you tell whether
338
00:19:59,446 --> 00:20:01,219
something is awake or asleep?
339
00:20:01,219 --> 00:20:05,690
It's not too difficult to lay down some
specific criteria for when something
340
00:20:05,695 --> 00:20:07,119
is awake and fully functioning.
341
00:20:07,135 --> 00:20:11,000
But with the third sense how do
you tell whether something is
342
00:20:11,000 --> 00:20:14,811
experiencing qually or not how do
you tell whether the light is on
343
00:20:14,816 --> 00:20:17,273
inside or not to put it figuratively?
344
00:20:17,753 --> 00:20:22,623
One way to get a kind of sense of
the difficulty of the question is
345
00:20:22,623 --> 00:20:27,376
to switch from kind of human beings
or artificially intelligent robots.
346
00:20:27,436 --> 00:20:31,297
Step aside from the question of whether
they can be conscious and just think
347
00:20:31,297 --> 00:20:35,144
about other species, maybe ones less
complicated than human beings are
348
00:20:35,144 --> 00:20:38,002
flies conscious do flies have Qualia?
349
00:20:38,002 --> 00:20:39,180
What about frogs?
350
00:20:39,180 --> 00:20:41,010
What about earthworms and so on?
351
00:20:41,011 --> 00:20:47,452
It's very hard to imagine any way
of establishing whether an earthworm
352
00:20:47,521 --> 00:20:50,099
has qu or not, they do behavior.
353
00:20:50,151 --> 00:20:51,801
They'll move towards food.
354
00:20:51,861 --> 00:20:56,868
They'll recoil from noxious stimuli,
like heat or an electric shock and so
355
00:20:56,873 --> 00:21:03,042
on, but do they really feel pain or do
they just react to the incoming signals?
356
00:21:03,115 --> 00:21:07,045
And suppose you got really interested in
the question of whether earth worms can
357
00:21:07,045 --> 00:21:09,145
feel pain or whether they just react.
358
00:21:09,355 --> 00:21:13,015
What tests could you possibly
do to establish whether an
359
00:21:13,020 --> 00:21:14,662
earth worm feels pain or not?
360
00:21:14,662 --> 00:21:19,601
It's very difficult to specify any
test that would leave you, any of
361
00:21:19,601 --> 00:21:21,251
the wires are on this question.
362
00:21:23,166 --> 00:21:24,156
What about fish?
363
00:21:24,156 --> 00:21:25,536
The fish feel pain.
364
00:21:25,986 --> 00:21:29,557
They certainly behave in very
complicated ways and, they'll seek
365
00:21:29,557 --> 00:21:34,415
food and avoid noxious stimuli and
they do group behavior and so on.
366
00:21:34,430 --> 00:21:39,296
They'll flock together and, gigantic
crowds in order to simulate larger fish
367
00:21:39,296 --> 00:21:41,606
in order to frighten off predators.
368
00:21:41,816 --> 00:21:47,145
Very complex, intelligent, you might say
behavior but to fish actually feel pain
369
00:21:47,205 --> 00:21:50,005
or do they just avoid noxious stimuli?
370
00:21:50,097 --> 00:21:52,257
How could you tell what
tests could you do?
371
00:21:52,257 --> 00:21:54,387
It's very, a very difficult question.
372
00:21:55,527 --> 00:21:57,627
So it's gonna be the same with robots.
373
00:21:57,688 --> 00:22:03,534
Once complex socially interacting
robots with near human levels
374
00:22:03,534 --> 00:22:04,979
of intelligence are here.
375
00:22:05,042 --> 00:22:09,169
We will be wondering whether they're
really conscious or whether there's
376
00:22:09,169 --> 00:22:14,029
just all this complex behavior, but
maybe the light isn't on inside.
377
00:22:14,089 --> 00:22:18,305
They don't have Qualia, even though
their sensors enable them to get round
378
00:22:18,305 --> 00:22:20,045
in the world just as well as we do.
379
00:22:22,625 --> 00:22:25,355
Are any current machines conscious?
380
00:22:25,432 --> 00:22:26,632
Yeah, you!
381
00:22:28,582 --> 00:22:29,692
I think you're conscious.
382
00:22:29,692 --> 00:22:30,832
I think you're a machine.
383
00:22:32,002 --> 00:22:33,382
Let me try to rephrase that.
384
00:22:33,472 --> 00:22:37,822
Is there any computer that
is currently conscious?
385
00:22:37,880 --> 00:22:39,110
I certainly don't think so.
386
00:22:39,110 --> 00:22:39,650
No.
387
00:22:39,730 --> 00:22:44,101
If you really push the point and insist
that your university of Canterbury
388
00:22:44,101 --> 00:22:48,633
laptop is conscious what tests
could we do to show who was right?
389
00:22:48,663 --> 00:22:53,463
Well, no, that, we're just not at the
stage of being able to specify tests that
390
00:22:53,463 --> 00:22:57,239
would tell you whether your laptop or
anything else is having Qualia or not.
391
00:22:57,759 --> 00:22:59,469
It's the same with like stones.
392
00:22:59,469 --> 00:23:03,307
If you insisted that your favorite
stone that you carry about in your
393
00:23:03,312 --> 00:23:06,917
pocket and call George, if you
insisted that George was conscious
394
00:23:06,917 --> 00:23:10,875
what tests could we do to show that
you were wrong or that you were right?
395
00:23:10,916 --> 00:23:14,726
There just aren't any, but of course
there's no reason to think that the
396
00:23:14,726 --> 00:23:16,644
stone in your pocket is conscious.
397
00:23:16,644 --> 00:23:22,419
Nothing goes on in it that's anything
like the processes in our brain that
398
00:23:22,419 --> 00:23:25,059
we believe causes consciousness.
399
00:23:25,129 --> 00:23:26,569
And it's the same with your laptop.
400
00:23:26,659 --> 00:23:31,518
There are no processes in your laptop
that even distantly resembled the
401
00:23:31,608 --> 00:23:36,618
neurophysiological chemical stuff that
goes on in ours and that we think is
402
00:23:36,618 --> 00:23:38,808
causally responsible for consciousness.
403
00:23:40,428 --> 00:23:42,858
Is Google's Lambda conscious.
404
00:23:43,368 --> 00:23:44,388
No.
405
00:23:44,448 --> 00:23:47,358
Has anybody ever really said that it is?
406
00:23:47,438 --> 00:23:48,588
Not even Lemoine.
407
00:23:48,688 --> 00:23:50,128
I've read an interview with him.
408
00:23:50,133 --> 00:23:52,288
I did some prep for the interview.
409
00:23:52,297 --> 00:23:54,547
He says is Lambda sentient.
410
00:23:55,057 --> 00:23:58,957
He says, we can't answer that
question definitely at this point,
411
00:23:59,347 --> 00:24:01,706
but it's a question to take seriously.
412
00:24:01,728 --> 00:24:04,098
He was wildly misreported in the press.
413
00:24:04,098 --> 00:24:06,738
He did not say it was
conscious or sentient.
414
00:24:07,188 --> 00:24:10,631
He just raised the question and
pointed out that we can't answer it.
415
00:24:12,431 --> 00:24:13,571
That is a very interesting point.
416
00:24:13,571 --> 00:24:16,961
Thank you for this preparation,
because I read all these news stories.
417
00:24:16,961 --> 00:24:20,411
I was amazed about how much
attention this question got.
418
00:24:20,731 --> 00:24:25,081
Everybody was so fired up about, look,
we've got a machine consciousness and
419
00:24:25,081 --> 00:24:27,241
that seems to trigger something in people.
420
00:24:27,451 --> 00:24:29,431
Why is it such a big trigger for people?
421
00:24:29,701 --> 00:24:31,861
Well, it's such an interesting question.
422
00:24:32,331 --> 00:24:36,297
We tend to think of consciousness
as like distinctive of human
423
00:24:36,302 --> 00:24:38,667
beings or defining of human beings.
424
00:24:38,722 --> 00:24:42,363
We're maybe prepared to allow that
chimps are conscious as well or
425
00:24:42,363 --> 00:24:46,336
gorillas and so on, but it is kind
consciousness is something very special
426
00:24:46,336 --> 00:24:48,796
to ours and our close relatives.
427
00:24:49,066 --> 00:24:52,816
And so we get very excited about the
idea that we may be able to recreate
428
00:24:52,816 --> 00:24:55,216
this very special thing in machines.
429
00:24:55,300 --> 00:24:59,002
It almost everyone is,
extremely interested in the
430
00:24:59,002 --> 00:25:00,232
question of consciousness.
431
00:25:00,232 --> 00:25:00,832
I find.
432
00:25:03,742 --> 00:25:08,542
What problems do machines have that
inhibit them to become conscious?
433
00:25:10,652 --> 00:25:12,542
I don't know the answer to that question.
434
00:25:12,722 --> 00:25:16,922
It's just too early to be able to even
sketch out an answer to that question.
435
00:25:17,492 --> 00:25:20,912
The sort of answer that you
might give depends on which
436
00:25:20,912 --> 00:25:24,032
way you jump on open questions.
437
00:25:24,032 --> 00:25:26,342
Like some of the ones that
we've been talking about.
438
00:25:26,410 --> 00:25:30,320
There are these sort of two stances
towards consciousness, and one is
439
00:25:30,320 --> 00:25:35,087
that consciousness is caused by
specific physical chemical processes.
440
00:25:35,170 --> 00:25:39,070
And the other is that consciousness is
just the outcome of computation and the
441
00:25:39,070 --> 00:25:42,700
physics and chemistry of the underlying
device just don't matter so long as
442
00:25:42,700 --> 00:25:44,320
you've got the right computations.
443
00:25:44,560 --> 00:25:50,693
So if you take that second stance
towards current computers then what's
444
00:25:50,693 --> 00:25:55,762
standing between consciousness and
current computers, what's the blockage
445
00:25:55,767 --> 00:25:58,880
that they need to get through in
order to In order to have Qualia.
446
00:25:59,040 --> 00:26:00,780
Well, they just need the right algorithms.
447
00:26:00,780 --> 00:26:03,780
They've just got to be able
to do the right computations.
448
00:26:04,420 --> 00:26:09,806
The other stance where you know, chemistry
and physics matter to the generation
449
00:26:09,811 --> 00:26:14,418
of consciousness then the computers
we have today look like they're just
450
00:26:14,418 --> 00:26:18,948
completely the wrong sorts of things
to be conscious because they don't have
451
00:26:18,948 --> 00:26:21,169
the same kind of chemistry that we do.
452
00:26:23,719 --> 00:26:27,859
Do you think we will ever
understand consciousness?
453
00:26:28,219 --> 00:26:29,089
Oh yes.
454
00:26:29,359 --> 00:26:29,959
Why not?
455
00:26:29,974 --> 00:26:35,450
It's just another of those delightful
scientific questions that happen to
456
00:26:35,450 --> 00:26:37,880
be really, and interestingly hard.
457
00:26:38,360 --> 00:26:41,990
We might have to wait a while, as
I said before, we know the answer.
458
00:26:42,020 --> 00:26:46,032
It's a scientific question about the
world and if the human race survives
459
00:26:46,032 --> 00:26:48,132
long enough, I'm sure we'll answer it.
460
00:26:50,502 --> 00:26:53,482
Do you think machines will
ever become conscious?
461
00:26:53,532 --> 00:26:54,351
Yeah.
462
00:26:54,381 --> 00:26:57,111
Your kids, your children's children.
463
00:26:57,203 --> 00:27:00,563
All machines, they
probably all be conscious.
464
00:27:00,681 --> 00:27:02,511
Would you like to rephrase your question?
465
00:27:02,511 --> 00:27:03,801
That's probably not what we meant.
466
00:27:03,868 --> 00:27:08,674
This is, again, the assumption
that humans are in a way a machine
467
00:27:08,679 --> 00:27:10,054
and not everybody would agree to it.
468
00:27:10,054 --> 00:27:14,314
Some people would argue that there
is something about the human mind
469
00:27:14,314 --> 00:27:17,044
that is not reducible to physics.
470
00:27:17,494 --> 00:27:19,864
It's not just limited
to a physical phenomena.
471
00:27:21,304 --> 00:27:24,531
And those people would have, a different
answer because they would not accept
472
00:27:24,531 --> 00:27:26,211
this premise that we are machines.
473
00:27:29,111 --> 00:27:30,251
We could argue about this.
474
00:27:30,251 --> 00:27:31,421
It is a separate issue.
475
00:27:31,436 --> 00:27:34,016
What is a machine and are humans machines.
476
00:27:34,356 --> 00:27:39,488
and of course machines can
cause things beyond themselves.
477
00:27:39,998 --> 00:27:41,318
Let me try another angle.
478
00:27:41,588 --> 00:27:46,118
Some people argue that if our brain
would be simple enough for us to
479
00:27:46,118 --> 00:27:49,178
understand we would be too stupid.
480
00:27:49,928 --> 00:27:52,808
And I imagine that you've
got a response for that.
481
00:27:53,658 --> 00:27:58,140
When you first hear it, it seems it seems
funny and, it's nice because it's self
482
00:27:58,140 --> 00:28:02,181
deprecating and also there's some kind
of infinite loop or something in it.
483
00:28:02,228 --> 00:28:04,310
So it's an interesting
kind of thing to hear.
484
00:28:04,322 --> 00:28:06,716
But when you think about it,
was is it supposed to show?
485
00:28:07,166 --> 00:28:13,858
The kind of basic idea that it's getting
at is that if a understands B then a
486
00:28:13,858 --> 00:28:16,348
needs to be more complicated than B.
487
00:28:16,366 --> 00:28:21,986
If a is less complicated than
B, then how can a understand B.
488
00:28:21,986 --> 00:28:27,462
But I just don't buy this idea that
a has got to be more complicated
489
00:28:27,462 --> 00:28:29,712
than B in order to understand B.
490
00:28:29,768 --> 00:28:32,498
There's parallel phenomenon.
491
00:28:32,584 --> 00:28:37,470
Alan Turing the guy who, invented the
fundamental ideas of the modern computer.
492
00:28:37,480 --> 00:28:44,753
He proved a theorum back in 1936, which is
it's a very counterintuitive theorum it's
493
00:28:44,753 --> 00:28:46,553
something that you wouldn't expect at all.
494
00:28:46,553 --> 00:28:48,770
And it sounds wrong
when you first hear it.
495
00:28:48,780 --> 00:28:52,095
He talks about these sort of
idealized computers that we now
496
00:28:52,095 --> 00:28:54,045
call Turing machines simply.
497
00:28:54,415 --> 00:28:56,297
He called them computing machines.
498
00:28:56,332 --> 00:28:57,990
They're abstract devices.
499
00:28:58,059 --> 00:29:03,596
But he proved that Once a tiering machine
reaches a certain level of complexity and
500
00:29:03,596 --> 00:29:08,259
he was able to specify, very precisely
what that level of complexity was.
501
00:29:08,291 --> 00:29:12,071
Then it can behave like
any Turing machine.
502
00:29:12,221 --> 00:29:16,832
It can simulate the behavior or
understand if you like any Turing machine
503
00:29:16,952 --> 00:29:19,194
of much greater complexity than it.
504
00:29:19,237 --> 00:29:23,333
It's once you reach a certain
critical threshold of complexity,
505
00:29:23,783 --> 00:29:28,415
then that gives you all that you
need for that machine to understand
506
00:29:28,415 --> 00:29:30,455
something of much greater complexity.
507
00:29:30,995 --> 00:29:34,716
And he had a theorum, as I say, which
which said essentially that and it's
508
00:29:34,716 --> 00:29:39,402
the same with understanding our own
brain or other complicated systems.
509
00:29:39,462 --> 00:29:44,353
It's like once you reach a certain
level of complexity, then you
510
00:29:44,353 --> 00:29:48,133
can understand systems of far
greater complexity than you.
511
00:29:49,073 --> 00:29:54,684
Once you've got enough smarts on board,
once you reach that critical level, then
512
00:29:54,904 --> 00:29:59,915
given enough memory and given enough
time and given enough data, then you
513
00:29:59,915 --> 00:30:02,735
can understand everything, anything.
514
00:30:02,785 --> 00:30:07,028
Maybe humans have already reached
in natural evolution that, that
515
00:30:07,028 --> 00:30:10,988
kind of critical threshold for
being able to understand any
516
00:30:10,988 --> 00:30:13,058
system, no matter how complex.
517
00:30:13,608 --> 00:30:16,098
Given enough time and enough
memory and enough data.
518
00:30:26,830 --> 00:30:31,030
How can you be so optimistic about
the progress of science when we
519
00:30:31,030 --> 00:30:35,260
struggle with this question for
thousands of years, and AI has
520
00:30:35,260 --> 00:30:37,820
disappointed most of its predictions?
521
00:30:39,515 --> 00:30:42,665
There are two very interesting
claims in that question.
522
00:30:42,665 --> 00:30:45,965
One is that AI is disappointed
as in most of its predictions.
523
00:30:45,965 --> 00:30:47,195
I don't think that's so.
524
00:30:47,715 --> 00:30:51,780
There have been these crazy
predictions that people in AI
525
00:30:51,780 --> 00:30:53,381
have made from time to time.
526
00:30:53,420 --> 00:30:56,655
And sometimes they do it
just to get attention.
527
00:30:56,705 --> 00:31:00,335
People like Ray Kurzweil, for
example, to mention one name.
528
00:31:00,715 --> 00:31:05,238
with his fascinating and brilliantly
written books that make all these claims
529
00:31:05,238 --> 00:31:08,886
about, computers will go to church
in 50 years time and stuff like that.
530
00:31:09,256 --> 00:31:12,840
All predictions like this will
I'm sure fail to come true.
531
00:31:13,110 --> 00:31:16,530
And also there, there have been
lots of cases where AI researchers
532
00:31:16,535 --> 00:31:20,768
themselves have made predictions
for the purposes of getting funding.
533
00:31:21,578 --> 00:31:25,538
You hype things up to persuade
the us army or whatever to give
534
00:31:25,538 --> 00:31:27,038
you money for your research.
535
00:31:27,438 --> 00:31:30,948
This has led to the the so-called AI
winters where there's been all this
536
00:31:30,948 --> 00:31:33,244
hype and then none of it comes true.
537
00:31:33,244 --> 00:31:37,074
And so people lose their faith
and the funding dries up and
538
00:31:37,074 --> 00:31:38,544
it kind of goes in cycles.
539
00:31:38,914 --> 00:31:43,108
Aside from all of that, which has had a
lot of press attention but that's just
540
00:31:43,186 --> 00:31:48,809
the froth on the surface, if you look
deeper down AI has made very steady
541
00:31:48,809 --> 00:31:52,229
upwards progress since about 1950.
542
00:31:52,659 --> 00:31:56,839
People at the work face have
been making modest scientifically
543
00:31:56,844 --> 00:31:58,679
well evidenced predictions.
544
00:31:58,679 --> 00:32:01,060
That have tended by
and large to come true.
545
00:32:01,300 --> 00:32:03,880
Maybe they've been a bit
wrong about the time scale
546
00:32:03,880 --> 00:32:05,480
sometimes and things have taken.
547
00:32:05,875 --> 00:32:07,855
50 years rather than 10 years.
548
00:32:07,909 --> 00:32:11,270
But I would say it's far from
the case that AI has disappointed
549
00:32:11,270 --> 00:32:12,560
us in its predictions.
550
00:32:12,830 --> 00:32:15,327
I think AI has been pretty much on track.
551
00:32:15,327 --> 00:32:19,315
Since the subject was conceived
by Turing in the 1940s.
552
00:32:19,320 --> 00:32:22,975
He called it machine intelligence
rather than artificial intelligence.
553
00:32:22,975 --> 00:32:25,675
And, he was one of the
first to make predictions.
554
00:32:25,675 --> 00:32:28,400
He was very cautious
about his time scales.
555
00:32:28,430 --> 00:32:32,046
He talked in terms of millennia
rather than decays as some
556
00:32:32,046 --> 00:32:33,456
of the later predictors did.
557
00:32:34,006 --> 00:32:37,747
There were predictions
in the in the 1960s.
558
00:32:37,747 --> 00:32:43,627
And so on that within a generation
machines would be able to do all the work
559
00:32:43,627 --> 00:32:45,817
that human beings could do at that time.
560
00:32:46,057 --> 00:32:50,557
These predictions, these sort of showy,
crazy predictions are bit in the dust.
561
00:32:50,967 --> 00:32:55,659
The predictions closer to the
workplace, they've been born out as the
562
00:32:55,659 --> 00:32:58,326
subjects progressed very successfully.
563
00:32:58,326 --> 00:33:00,418
But that was just the second
half of your question.
564
00:33:00,748 --> 00:33:03,958
May maybe you should say the
first half again in case people
565
00:33:03,958 --> 00:33:04,934
have forgotten right now.
566
00:33:04,936 --> 00:33:08,726
The first one was a question
about the progress of science.
567
00:33:09,706 --> 00:33:14,296
You mentioned that this is a scientific
endeavor and it might take a long while
568
00:33:14,296 --> 00:33:20,686
for us to achieve it, but one could also
have a more pessimistic view on it and
569
00:33:20,686 --> 00:33:23,296
you seem to be rather optimistic about it.
570
00:33:24,121 --> 00:33:25,111
Yeah.
571
00:33:25,149 --> 00:33:29,410
Science often just does take a
long time with the hard questions.
572
00:33:29,498 --> 00:33:34,571
We've already talked about matter and how
that's taken thousands of years for people
573
00:33:34,571 --> 00:33:37,058
to get straight about what matter is.
574
00:33:37,058 --> 00:33:40,038
And even now there are a lot of
details still to be filled in.
575
00:33:40,127 --> 00:33:42,480
We've got the basic picture, atoms.
576
00:33:42,640 --> 00:33:45,118
We take the standard
model for granted now.
577
00:33:45,418 --> 00:33:48,088
But it was thousands
of years in the making.
578
00:33:48,608 --> 00:33:52,805
If you think what are the three
biggest scientific questions, the
579
00:33:52,810 --> 00:33:57,605
three most fundamental questions
about the physical universe.
580
00:33:57,672 --> 00:33:59,862
My big three would be what is matter?
581
00:33:59,892 --> 00:34:02,862
What is life and what is consciousness?
582
00:34:02,880 --> 00:34:04,194
And what is life?
583
00:34:04,247 --> 00:34:06,937
We've had a, a long
struggle answering that.
584
00:34:07,042 --> 00:34:11,590
And even now the answer is
certainly not so sharply defined
585
00:34:11,590 --> 00:34:13,360
as the answer to what is matter.
586
00:34:13,950 --> 00:34:18,420
Not very long ago, people had all
these wild theories of what is life.
587
00:34:18,420 --> 00:34:22,390
There was the vital force that,
inhabited living beings and then
588
00:34:22,420 --> 00:34:24,370
disappeared somewhere when they died.
589
00:34:24,370 --> 00:34:28,020
It's really not very long ago that
people thought in these terms.
590
00:34:28,026 --> 00:34:31,716
But since then we've had Darwin and
the theory of evolution and we've had
591
00:34:31,916 --> 00:34:34,432
Crick and Watson and molecular biology.
592
00:34:34,672 --> 00:34:38,792
And now we're pretty worked out as to
what life is at any rate in the case
593
00:34:38,797 --> 00:34:41,055
of human beings and our near relatives.
594
00:34:41,076 --> 00:34:43,795
But again it's taken
millennial to get there.
595
00:34:43,853 --> 00:34:48,562
If it takes, a few thousand years
more in the case of the hardest
596
00:34:48,562 --> 00:34:52,642
of those three questions, what its
consciousness, who should be surprised?
597
00:34:54,442 --> 00:34:57,482
So it all comes down to
our lack of patients.
598
00:34:57,512 --> 00:34:59,712
I think scientists are very patient.
599
00:34:59,712 --> 00:35:02,131
They want results and, in their lifetimes.
600
00:35:02,131 --> 00:35:05,731
But science as a whole is
a very patient process.
601
00:35:05,811 --> 00:35:08,641
People edge very slowly.
602
00:35:08,641 --> 00:35:11,431
Generation by generation
towards the truth.
603
00:35:12,871 --> 00:35:16,021
Another old joke is that
sciences progresses with
604
00:35:16,026 --> 00:35:17,581
the death of its professors?
605
00:35:20,071 --> 00:35:20,911
yes.
606
00:35:20,920 --> 00:35:23,530
Yes, it's probably not really so is it?
607
00:35:23,610 --> 00:35:29,340
It's like science progresses with
the brainwaves of its professors.
608
00:35:29,427 --> 00:35:33,351
If you think of Newton,
Einstein, Crick and Watson.
609
00:35:33,418 --> 00:35:38,711
It's this living beings that professors
and others move science forwards.
610
00:35:38,715 --> 00:35:41,655
It's not in dying that the
quantum leaps are made.
611
00:35:42,225 --> 00:35:45,105
In the history of science, there's
the idea of paradigm shifts and the
612
00:35:45,105 --> 00:35:47,295
different phases that sciences go through.
613
00:35:47,295 --> 00:35:52,515
And there are phases in the scientific
progress where new ideas struggle, because
614
00:35:52,515 --> 00:35:54,405
there's a very well-established idea.
615
00:35:54,405 --> 00:35:59,535
And I guess the, this joke about
professors dying is that at some
616
00:35:59,535 --> 00:36:03,435
point professors can inhibit progress
because of the establishment.
617
00:36:04,255 --> 00:36:08,475
There are many sort of jokes
and sayings around this idea.
618
00:36:08,591 --> 00:36:11,460
And one is that paradigms
are never refuted.
619
00:36:11,476 --> 00:36:14,636
It's just that their
adherents eventually die off.
620
00:36:14,687 --> 00:36:17,419
But I dunno, who knows, but
why are you making all these,
621
00:36:17,509 --> 00:36:20,119
this dead professor jokes?
622
00:36:22,069 --> 00:36:23,479
Maybe I'm too pessimistic.
623
00:36:27,409 --> 00:36:27,889
I don't know.
624
00:36:27,889 --> 00:36:28,849
These are just jokes.
625
00:36:28,854 --> 00:36:33,399
I think science is a wonderful thing
and it has made enormous progress
626
00:36:33,399 --> 00:36:35,587
over the last few thousand years.
627
00:36:35,587 --> 00:36:39,040
And, it's down to the power of
the human mind that's happened.
628
00:36:39,040 --> 00:36:42,845
And the, the mechanics of the process
and the micromechanics are very
629
00:36:42,850 --> 00:36:47,979
interesting to study and no doubt, a
small part of those micromechanics are
630
00:36:48,037 --> 00:36:52,687
adherents of disconfirmed theories
dying off and stopping publishing
631
00:36:52,687 --> 00:36:54,331
articles about them and the journals.
632
00:36:54,331 --> 00:36:58,624
I'm sure, but it's only that sort
of a fringe part of the mechanics.
633
00:36:59,364 --> 00:37:03,575
When I did my PhD, I was fascinated
by robots and I built them.
634
00:37:03,575 --> 00:37:04,475
I programmed them.
635
00:37:04,475 --> 00:37:05,915
I evaluated them.
636
00:37:05,915 --> 00:37:10,025
And I guess I was quite confident
that this will somehow succeed.
637
00:37:11,045 --> 00:37:18,125
And over the decades, I see that the
progress we make isn't indeed rather slow.
638
00:37:18,245 --> 00:37:23,368
And my optimism about the
speed of progress has changed.
639
00:37:23,377 --> 00:37:28,147
In this podcast I made once an episode
called "why do all social robots fail?"
640
00:37:28,567 --> 00:37:33,307
And it observes that a lot of companies
start up building a robot, try it.
641
00:37:33,307 --> 00:37:36,007
And somehow they can't stay in the market.
642
00:37:36,007 --> 00:37:38,137
And after a couple of years, they all die.
643
00:37:38,287 --> 00:37:40,867
We made a book about robots,
"human robot interaction".
644
00:37:40,872 --> 00:37:42,487
And by now it's a graveyard.
645
00:37:42,547 --> 00:37:45,607
All the pictures of all the
robots in the book are dead.
646
00:37:47,017 --> 00:37:50,987
So I guess that's just probably part
of my own personal journey about
647
00:37:51,577 --> 00:37:54,127
becoming hopefully more patient.
648
00:37:54,427 --> 00:37:54,607
Mm-hmm.
649
00:37:55,417 --> 00:37:58,137
And there are all these
failed projects in AI.
650
00:37:58,137 --> 00:38:03,192
In fact, if you look back into the history
of AI, like every project has failed.
651
00:38:03,192 --> 00:38:07,752
People come up with these new ideas and
they build a new system, which is aimed
652
00:38:07,757 --> 00:38:12,935
to do, these various complicated things
and it's partially successful, but then as
653
00:38:12,935 --> 00:38:18,097
experimentation progresses and progresses,
they realize that actually it's not up
654
00:38:18,097 --> 00:38:20,347
to the task and the project crashes.
655
00:38:20,747 --> 00:38:22,217
Isn't this a bit depressing?
656
00:38:22,277 --> 00:38:23,447
There's no progress.
657
00:38:23,447 --> 00:38:25,307
It's just this long stream of failure.
658
00:38:25,852 --> 00:38:27,942
Well, no, that's how science is.
659
00:38:27,942 --> 00:38:31,872
If you think of physics, people come up
with a theory and it looks good and they
660
00:38:32,112 --> 00:38:36,782
confront nature with it and do experiments
and perhaps discover new phenomena
661
00:38:36,787 --> 00:38:38,942
or as a result of this investigation.
662
00:38:39,122 --> 00:38:41,252
But eventually the theory is refuted.
663
00:38:41,282 --> 00:38:42,747
It's a failed theory.
664
00:38:42,751 --> 00:38:45,961
And the history of science is just
littered with failed theories,
665
00:38:45,961 --> 00:38:47,731
but that's the path to the truth.
666
00:38:47,755 --> 00:38:51,998
And yeah, it requires great patience
and it's an intergenerational thing.
667
00:38:52,079 --> 00:38:56,343
We shouldn't be so greedy as to expect
that, we are gonna get all the answers.
668
00:38:56,343 --> 00:38:59,269
It'll be, the next generation
and the next generation and the
669
00:38:59,269 --> 00:39:01,275
next but that's how science is.
670
00:39:01,305 --> 00:39:03,555
And it's not gonna be any different in AI.
671
00:39:04,035 --> 00:39:08,836
It's gonna take a long time and every
project is gonna fail until the end.
672
00:39:10,646 --> 00:39:14,936
That means that we should be
particularly careful with the
673
00:39:14,936 --> 00:39:17,276
PhD students that we educate.
674
00:39:17,366 --> 00:39:23,608
That follow us and make sure that
they have a good career and hope
675
00:39:23,613 --> 00:39:28,018
that they will then continue the same
tradition to then their students.
676
00:39:28,068 --> 00:39:28,998
Oh yes.
677
00:39:29,088 --> 00:39:29,418
Yes.
678
00:39:29,418 --> 00:39:33,168
All our hopes are always on the
next generation that's for sure.
679
00:39:34,608 --> 00:39:40,368
But you could interpret this as a negative
thing in terms of, we don't know anything.
680
00:39:40,458 --> 00:39:42,048
We haven't figured it out.
681
00:39:42,111 --> 00:39:44,901
It takes thousands of years
you go and deal with it.
682
00:39:44,936 --> 00:39:49,256
It's like every generation makes
its own small contribution.
683
00:39:49,290 --> 00:39:52,800
And the contributions add
up over the centuries.
684
00:39:53,010 --> 00:39:55,470
That's how it's been
with science in general.
685
00:39:55,470 --> 00:39:56,640
And that's how it'll be with AI.
686
00:39:56,645 --> 00:39:57,540
I'm sure.
687
00:39:58,170 --> 00:40:02,852
So it's patience and understanding
of modesty in terms of what
688
00:40:02,852 --> 00:40:04,202
we can achieve in a lifetime.
689
00:40:04,862 --> 00:40:05,342
Yes.
690
00:40:05,342 --> 00:40:10,874
It's patience and kind of like
agglomeration or something, discovery
691
00:40:10,874 --> 00:40:17,948
is a glomerate and eventually the
this great stack of agglomeration will
692
00:40:17,948 --> 00:40:20,378
add up to human level, AI and beyond.
693
00:40:20,378 --> 00:40:22,328
But it may take a very
long time to get there.
694
00:40:22,628 --> 00:40:27,398
And the fact that sort of at every
attempt to produce an intelligent system
695
00:40:27,398 --> 00:40:32,694
up to now has turned out in the end to
be defective is what we should expect.
696
00:40:32,724 --> 00:40:35,153
It shouldn't, be a source of pessimism.
697
00:40:36,833 --> 00:40:42,413
Is there any chance that I could tempt
you to give us a guess at a timeline?
698
00:40:43,493 --> 00:40:44,303
No.
699
00:40:44,333 --> 00:40:49,117
In the history of science every attempt
to put a number on, how many years
700
00:40:49,117 --> 00:40:51,678
until we do X it always goes wrong.
701
00:40:53,028 --> 00:40:53,448
Hmm.
702
00:40:54,228 --> 00:40:55,578
Turing said millennia.
703
00:40:55,628 --> 00:40:59,498
We all know that Turing was the
greatest practitioner of AI ever.
704
00:40:59,798 --> 00:41:01,508
So maybe we should just listen to him.
705
00:41:01,988 --> 00:41:03,788
And what did Ray Kurzweil predict?
706
00:41:04,548 --> 00:41:10,305
I think he predicted that we'd have human
level AI five years ago or something
707
00:41:10,445 --> 00:41:12,455
I can't re I can't remember exactly.
708
00:41:14,355 --> 00:41:20,426
I heard one very serious AI researcher
saying I, I just wish Kurzweil
709
00:41:20,441 --> 00:41:22,756
would stop writing his books.
710
00:41:22,806 --> 00:41:26,196
The idea being that he was
actually damaging AI by
711
00:41:26,201 --> 00:41:28,956
making all these wild claims.
712
00:41:29,266 --> 00:41:30,751
I don't think that's so.
713
00:41:30,801 --> 00:41:34,876
I think it's great to have
a Ray Kurzweil writing these
714
00:41:34,876 --> 00:41:38,806
provocative books and getting
people thinking about these issues.
715
00:41:50,869 --> 00:41:55,879
Does that mean that eventually we
consider machines to be conscious
716
00:41:55,879 --> 00:42:01,369
simply we think and feel that they're
worth the benefit of the doubt?
717
00:42:02,029 --> 00:42:02,719
Yes.
718
00:42:02,749 --> 00:42:03,319
Yes.
719
00:42:03,369 --> 00:42:05,469
That may be what actually happens.
720
00:42:05,809 --> 00:42:10,099
Complex AI, complex robots come
along that we can interact with.
721
00:42:10,099 --> 00:42:13,799
They're in the same ballpark
as we are in terms of IQ and
722
00:42:13,919 --> 00:42:15,401
social intelligence and so on.
723
00:42:15,422 --> 00:42:23,014
And we might even by that stage have got
no further in constructing a test for
724
00:42:23,014 --> 00:42:25,624
whether they really do have Qualia or not.
725
00:42:26,094 --> 00:42:29,274
We're completely in the dark
as to whether they have Qualia.
726
00:42:29,544 --> 00:42:33,264
Of course, if we ask them, they
might say, well, yeah, of course
727
00:42:33,264 --> 00:42:35,274
I know what color a blue sky is.
728
00:42:35,284 --> 00:42:39,184
What are you doubting when you
doubt whether I'm conscious?
729
00:42:39,244 --> 00:42:40,414
That's just more behavior.
730
00:42:40,414 --> 00:42:41,960
That's just verbal behavior.
731
00:42:41,960 --> 00:42:45,381
And the idea is that, you can have
behavior that's as rich as you
732
00:42:45,386 --> 00:42:49,991
like even without there being the
Qualia underlying that behavior.
733
00:42:50,231 --> 00:42:52,495
So what the robot says is of no help.
734
00:42:52,545 --> 00:42:59,620
We don't know whether these robots can
feel pain or not, but they're our buddies.
735
00:42:59,870 --> 00:43:03,530
we will give them the benefit of the
doubt and we won't twist their heads off
736
00:43:03,530 --> 00:43:05,940
or track them onto the fire and so on.
737
00:43:06,300 --> 00:43:10,480
We don't know whether they feel
pain or not, but we like them.
738
00:43:10,485 --> 00:43:11,500
They're our friends.
739
00:43:11,500 --> 00:43:13,030
We'll give them the benefit of the doubt.
740
00:43:13,990 --> 00:43:19,150
Does that mean that in the future, at
some point, even with us not knowing
741
00:43:19,150 --> 00:43:23,530
if they actually have consciousness, we
would give them the benefit of the doubt.
742
00:43:23,620 --> 00:43:27,760
And that would also imply then
a legal standing that they
743
00:43:27,765 --> 00:43:29,050
might even get citizenship.
744
00:43:31,670 --> 00:43:32,990
Citizenship, I don't know.
745
00:43:32,990 --> 00:43:34,152
That's a technical issue.
746
00:43:34,152 --> 00:43:38,456
There's Sophia robot that was given yes
citizenship in Saudi Arabia, I believe.
747
00:43:38,461 --> 00:43:38,936
Yes.
748
00:43:40,196 --> 00:43:42,296
a marketing ploy if ever I saw one.
749
00:43:42,766 --> 00:43:48,277
This question arises independently of
consciousness because you might feel that
750
00:43:48,277 --> 00:43:54,180
simply because a robot is intelligent
super intelligent it's deserving of legal
751
00:43:54,180 --> 00:43:59,178
status, personhood moral status, and so
on just in virtue of its intelligence.
752
00:43:59,190 --> 00:44:03,055
And you might think all that even
though you accept that there's no way of
753
00:44:03,055 --> 00:44:06,895
telling whether it's actually conscious
in, in the sense of having Qualia.
754
00:44:06,895 --> 00:44:11,835
So for us, it is not necessary to
have a proof of their consciousness
755
00:44:12,285 --> 00:44:14,555
to be able to grant them personhood.
756
00:44:14,693 --> 00:44:17,336
Yes I think that's arguably so.
757
00:44:17,356 --> 00:44:19,516
So there would be a
new visa category soon.
758
00:44:21,526 --> 00:44:22,156
yes.
759
00:44:23,266 --> 00:44:27,749
Philosophers have this term "Zombie"
for entities, creatures or machines
760
00:44:27,749 --> 00:44:32,094
or whatever that kind of do behavior
as complicated as you like, maybe
761
00:44:32,154 --> 00:44:35,154
behavior that's indistinguishable
from human behavior, but they
762
00:44:35,154 --> 00:44:37,224
don't have Qualia that's a zombie.
763
00:44:37,594 --> 00:44:41,030
Future robots they may
actually be zombies.
764
00:44:41,115 --> 00:44:42,315
All that stuff we've been talking about.
765
00:44:42,320 --> 00:44:44,005
How do you tell whether
it's a zombie or not?
766
00:44:44,053 --> 00:44:46,904
But there is a facts of the matter,
even though we have, we would have
767
00:44:46,904 --> 00:44:48,734
trouble finding out what the facts are.
768
00:44:48,795 --> 00:44:52,018
So suppose there is a robot
that it really is a zombie,
769
00:44:52,258 --> 00:44:54,141
but does human level behavior.
770
00:44:54,351 --> 00:44:56,001
Would you regard it as a person?
771
00:44:56,481 --> 00:44:57,201
Yeah.
772
00:44:57,381 --> 00:44:58,063
Surely.
773
00:44:58,094 --> 00:45:00,134
Would you regard it as
having moral status?
774
00:45:00,929 --> 00:45:02,069
Yeah, why not?
775
00:45:02,086 --> 00:45:04,768
The fact that the light isn't
on inside, that it doesn't
776
00:45:04,768 --> 00:45:06,568
have qu doesn't seem to matter.
777
00:45:06,635 --> 00:45:10,898
Qualia are a bit parochial when you
think about it, they're just there
778
00:45:10,903 --> 00:45:13,202
to do with our sensory mechanism.
779
00:45:13,235 --> 00:45:16,565
And it can do all the stuff
that it needs to do by different
780
00:45:16,570 --> 00:45:18,515
means that doesn't involve qu.
781
00:45:18,588 --> 00:45:19,458
Why does that matter?
782
00:45:19,458 --> 00:45:23,306
It's having Qualia is a bit like
having a particular chemistry.
783
00:45:23,306 --> 00:45:27,548
Having a carbon based chemistry,
isn't essential to being a person
784
00:45:27,548 --> 00:45:29,764
or having legal and moral rights.
785
00:45:29,814 --> 00:45:31,278
Similarly with Qualia.
786
00:45:31,358 --> 00:45:35,999
Qualia are just one way that
a sensory mechanism can work.
787
00:45:35,999 --> 00:45:39,629
Why shouldn't it being that has a
sensory mechanism that works in a totally
788
00:45:39,629 --> 00:45:42,289
different way and doesn't involve Qualia.
789
00:45:42,679 --> 00:45:46,339
Why should that bar it from
personhood and moral status?
790
00:45:46,759 --> 00:45:52,129
It comes back to the black box problem,
and we discussed it earlier whether your
791
00:45:52,129 --> 00:45:55,879
inner workings have to be similar to that
of human in order to become conscious.
792
00:45:56,239 --> 00:46:00,799
Or whether, as you said, if you have a
clever algorithm, that is good enough.
793
00:46:02,494 --> 00:46:05,344
The algorithm might be
enough to produce the Qualia.
794
00:46:05,414 --> 00:46:06,884
They're the two stances that as well.
795
00:46:06,884 --> 00:46:10,244
Do Qualia come down to an
algorithm or do Qualia come down
796
00:46:10,249 --> 00:46:11,864
to having the right chemistry.
797
00:46:12,254 --> 00:46:13,734
They're the two stances.
798
00:46:13,734 --> 00:46:18,943
But in the case of the zombie it,
it doesn't have qu at all, whether
799
00:46:18,943 --> 00:46:24,493
produced algorithmicly or produced
chemically, it just doesn't have Qualia,
800
00:46:24,793 --> 00:46:27,463
but it does have human level behavior.
801
00:46:27,477 --> 00:46:31,182
But it's sensory systems work in
a totally different way to ours.
802
00:46:31,251 --> 00:46:33,381
And Qualia just are not involved.
803
00:46:33,411 --> 00:46:35,668
Why should that, Debar it from personhood,
804
00:46:36,088 --> 00:46:36,418
Jack.
805
00:46:36,418 --> 00:46:38,488
Thank you so much for
joining this podcast.
806
00:46:38,728 --> 00:46:39,298
Thank you.