Outing Artificial Intelligence. Reckoning with Turing Tests

Repositorium für die Medienwissenschaft Benjamin H. Bratton Outing Artificial Intelligence. Reckoning with Turing Tests 2015 https://doi.org/10.25969/mediarep/1282 Veröffentlichungsversion / published version Sammelbandbeitrag / collection article Empfohlene Zitierung / Suggested Citation: Bratton, Benjamin H.: Outing Artificial Intelligence. Reckoning with Turing Tests. In: Matteo Pasquinelli (Hg.): Alleys of Your Mind. Augmented Intelligence and Its Traumas. Lüneburg: meson press 2015, S. 69– 80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25969/mediarep/1282. Nutzungsbedingungen: Dieser Text wird unter einer Creative Commons Namensnennung - Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 4.0 Lizenz zur Verfügung gestellt. Nähere Auskünfte zu dieser Lizenz finden Sie hier: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0 Terms of use: This document is made available under a creative commons Attribution - Share Alike 4.0 License. For more information see: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0 [4] Outing Artificial Intelligence: Reckoning with Turing Tests Benjamin H. Bratton Various anthropocentric fallacies have hobbled the development of artificial intelligence as a broadly based and widely understood set of technologies. Alan Turing’s famous “imitation game” was an ingenious thought experiment but also ripe for fixing the thresholds of machine cognition according to its apparent similarity to a false norm of exemplary human intelligence. To disavow that fragile self-refection is, however, easier than composing alternative roles for human sapience, industry, and agency along more heterogeneous spectrums. As various forms of machine intelligence become increasingly infrastructural, the implications of this difficulty are geopolitical as well as philosophical. In Alleys of Your Mind: Augmented Intellligence and Its Traumas, edited by Matteo Pasquinelli, 69–80.­Lüneburg:­meson­press,­2015.­ DOI:­10.14619/014­ 70 Alleys of Your Mind [One philosopher] asserted that he knew the whole secret . . . [H]e surveyed the two celestial strangers from top to toe, and maintained to their faces that their persons, their worlds, their suns, and their stars, were created solely for the use of man. At this assertion our two travelers let themselves fall against each other, seized with a fit of . . . inextinguishable laughter. — Voltaire, Micromegas: A Philosophical History (1752) Artificial­intelligence­(AI)­is­having­a­moment,­with­cognoscenti­from­Stephen­ Hawking­to­Elon­Musk­recently­weighing­in.1 Positions are split as to whether AI­will­save­us­or­will­destroy­us.­Some­argue­that­AI­can­never­exist­while­others insist that it is inevitable. In many cases, however, these polemics may be missing the real point as to what living and thinking with synthetic intelligence very­different­from­our­own­actually­means.­In­short,­a­mature­AI­is­not­an­ intelligence for us,­nor­is­its­intelligence­necessarily­humanlike.­For­our­own­ sanity­and­safety­we­should­not­ask­AI­to­pretend­to­be­“human.”­To­do­so­is­ self-defeating, unethical and perhaps even dangerous. The­little­boy­robot­in­Steven­Spielberg’s­A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)­wants­ to be a real boy with all his little metal heart, whereas Skynet in the Terminator movies­(1984–2015)­represents­the­opposite­end­of­the­spectrum­and­is­set­on­ ensuring human extinction. Despite all the Copernican traumas that modernity­has­brought,­some­forms­of­humanism­(and­their­companion­figures­of­ humanity)­still­presume­their­perch­in­the­center­of­the­cosmic­court.­I­argue­ that­we­should­abandon­the­conceit­that­a­“true”­artificial­intelligence,­arriving­ at sentience or sapience, must care deeply about humanity—us specifically—as the focus of its knowing and desire. Perhaps the real nightmare, even worse than­the­one­in­which­the­Big­Machine­wants­to­kill­you,­is­the­one­in­which­ it sees you as irrelevant, or not even as a discrete thing to know. Worse than being seen as an enemy is not being seen at all. Perhaps it is that what we really­fear­about­AI. 2 It­is­not­surprising­that­we­would­first­think­of­AI­in­terms­of­what­we­understand intelligence to be, namely human intelligence. This anthropocentric fallacy is a reasonable point of departure but not a reasonable conclusion. 1­ On­Hawking,­see­his­comments­to­BBC­at­http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30290540­and­also­Elon­Musk’s­$10­million­donation­to­Future­of­Life­Institute­“to­ prevent­AI­from­becoming­evil”­in­the­words­of­Wired­magazine.­See­http://www.wired. com/2015/01/elon-musk-ai-safety 2­ Paraphrased­from­Bratton­2014.­ Outing­Artificial­Intelligence The­idea­of­defining­AI­in­relation­to­its­ability­to­“pass”­as­a­human­is­as­old­ as­AI­research­itself.­In­1950,­Alan­Turing­published­“Computing­Machinery­ and Intelligence,” a paper in which he described what we now call the Turing Test,­and­which­he­referred­to­as­the­“imitation­game”­(Turing­1950,­433–460). There­are­different­versions­of­the­test,­all­of­which­are­revealing­about­why­ our­approach­to­the­culture­and­ethics­of­AI­is­what­it­is,­for­good­and­bad.­For­ the most familiar version, a human interrogator asks questions to two hidden contestants, one a human and the other a computer. Turing suggests that if the interrogator usually cannot tell which is which, and if the computer can successfully pass as human, then can we not conclude, for practical purposes, that­the­computer­is­“intelligent”?­(More­people­“know”­Turing’s­foundational­ text than have actually read it. This is unfortunate because the text is marvelous,­strange­and­surprising.)­ Turing proposes his test as a variation on a popular parlor game in which two hidden­contestants,­a­woman­(player­A)­and­a­man­(player­B)­try­to­convince­a­ third that he or she is a woman by their written responses to leading questions. To win, one of the players must convincingly be who they really are, whereas the other must try to pass as another gender. Turing describes his own­variation­as­one­where­“a­computer­takes­the­place­of­player­A,”­and­so­a­ literal­reading­would­suggest­that­in­his­version­the­computer­is­not­just­pretending to be a human, but pretending to be a woman. It must pass as a she. Other­versions­had­it­that­player­B­could­be­either­a­man­or­a­woman.­It­matters quite a lot if only one player is faking, or if both are, or if neither are. Now that we give the computer a seat, it may pretend to be a woman along with a man pretending to be a woman, both trying to trick the interrogator into figuring­out­which­is­a­man­and­which­is­a­woman.­Or­perhaps­the­computer­ pretends to be a man pretending to be a woman, along with a man pretending to be a woman, or even a computer pretending to be a woman pretending to be­a­man­pretending­to­be­a­woman!­In­the­real­world,­of­course,­we­have­all­of­ the above. 3 The problem with faking, however, does not end there: the issue is not so simple.­As­dramatized­in­The Imitation Game (2014),­the­recent­film­biography­ of Turing directed by Morten Tyldum, the mathematician himself also had to­“pass,”­in­his­case­as­a­straight­man­in­a­society­that­criminalized­homosexuality. Upon discovery that he was not what he appeared to be, he was forced­to­undergo­horrific­medical­treatments­known­as­chemical­castration. Ultimately the physical and emotional pain was too great and he committed suicide. The episode was a grotesque tribute to a man whose recent contribution­to­defeating­Hitler’s­military­was­still­a­state­secret.­Turing­was­ only recently given posthumous pardon, but the tens of thousands of other British­men­sentenced­under­similar­laws­have­not.­One­notes­the­sour­ironic­ 3­ See­also­the­discussion­of­Turing’s­“love­letter­generator”­in­King­2015. 71 72 Alleys of Your Mind correspondence­between­asking­an­AI­to­pass­the­test­in­order­to­qualify­as­ intelligent­—to­pass­as­a­human­intelligence—­with­Turing’s­own­need­to­hide­ his­homosexuality­and­to­pass­as­a­straight­man.­The­demands­of­both­bluffs­ are unnecessary and profoundly unfair. Should­complex­AI­arrive,­it­will­not­be­humanlike­unless­we­insist­that­it­ pretend to be so, because, one assumes, the idea that intelligence could be both real and inhuman at the same time is morally and psychologically intolerable. Instead of nurturing this bigotry, we would do better to allow that in our universe “thinking” is much more diverse, even alien, than our own particular case.­The­real­philosophical­lessons­of­AI­will­have­less­to­do­with­humans­ teaching machines how to think than with machines teaching humans a fuller and truer range of what thinking can be. Reckoning the Inhuman That­appreciation­should­account­for­two­related­but­different­understandings.­First,­one­would­recognize­that­intelligence­(and­knowledge)­is­always­ distributed among multiple positions and forms of life, both similar and dissimilar to one another. This is not to say that “nothing is true and everything is permitted” rather that no single neuro-anatomical disposition has a privileged monopoly­on­how­to­think­intelligently.­Either­there­is­no­such­thing­as­“general”­intelligence­(rather­only­situated­genres­of­limited­intelligence­in­which­ case­the­human­is­among­a­variety­of­these)­or­there­is­such­a­thing­as­general­ intelligence but that its very generality—its accomplishments of generic abstraction—are­agnostic­as­to­what­sort­of­entity­might­mediate­them.­Either­ way, human sapience is special but not unique. This appreciation would see AI­as­a­regular­phenomenon,­not­so­unlike­other­ways­that­human­intelligence­ is­located­among­other­modalities­of­intelligence­(such­as­non-human­animal­ cognition).­ Second,­our­appreciation­of­the­wider­continuum­would­also­recognize­that­ the­potential­advent­of­artificial­general­intelligence­(AGI)­is­also­novel,­as­yet­ unexplained, and will demand encounters between humans and mechanically situated­intelligence­that­are­unprecedented.­For­this,­AI­is­highly­irregular.­ Both­of­these­are­true,­and­it­may­only­be­that­understanding­one­is­how­we­ can really accomplish the other. That is, it may only be confronting what is genuinely new about non-carbon based intelligences possessing such ability and­autonomy­that­we­will­be­able­to­fully­recognize­the­continuum­of­intelligences with which ours has always been embedded. Put simply, it may be that­one­indirect­outcome­of­the­philosophical­discussion­about­AI­is­a­wider­ appreciation­of­non-human­animal­cognition­and­subjectivity.­ In­some­discourses­this­conjunction­is­domesticated­under­the­sign­of­ an all too pat “posthumanism,” or a transcendentally anthropocentric Outing­Artificial­Intelligence “transhumanism.”­Variations­of­the­former­have­much­to­offer­regardless,­and­ versions­of­the­latter­should­as­well,­but­probably­do­not­in­the­end.­At­issue­ here­is­more­the­limiting­contextualization­of­dominant­forms­of­humanism, than­a­relinquishment­of­what­the­human­(and­inhuman)­is­and­can be within that­expanded­continuum.­Reza­Negarestani­(2014)­retains­this­point­in­his­ essay­“The­Labor­of­the­Inhuman,”­insisting­that­the­easy­oversimplified­ nomination of forms of thought and experience that fall outside of various contingent norms, moral or mechanical, as “nonhuman” is to discard at the outset the integral mutability of the human as a philosophical and engineering program. That is, the relative uniqueness of human sapience is not what locks down­the­human­as­a­single­fixed­thing­with­essential­boundaries,­rather­it­is­ what­makes­the­human-as-such­into­an­open­project­of­continual­refashioning,­unverifiable­by­essence­or­telos. In­considering­that­capacity­in­regards­to­AI,­what­might­qualify­a­general­intelligence­not­duty­bound­to­species­or­phylum­is­its­capacity­for­abstraction.­Ray­ Brassier­(2014)­suggests­that­the­ability­of­an­organism,­however­primitive,­to­ map its own surroundings in relation to the basic terms of friend, food, or foe may be a primordial abstraction from which we do not graduate so much as learn to develop into something like reason and its local human variations. In this way, mapping abstraction is not an early stage through which things pass on their way toward more complex forms of intelligence, rather it is a general principle­of­that­complexification.­Like­protozoa­and­their­ganglia­feeling­about­ to­figure­out­what­is­out­there­or­like­humans­looking,­tasting,­and­imagining­ patterns,­today’s­forms­of­AI­are­(sometimes)­augmented­by­various­technologies of machine vision that allow them to see and sense the world “out there” and­to­abstract­the­forms­of­a­(mechanically)­embodied­intelligence,­both­ deliberately programmed for them and emerging unexpectedly. Exactly­where­to­draw­a­line­of­distinction­between­the­accomplishments­of­a­ AI­that­exemplify­general­intelligence­now­operating­though­a­new­medium,­ on­the­one­hand,­or­a­specific­projection­of­locally­human­intelligence­programmed into a cognitive prosthesis, on the other, is unknown and unknowable­at­present.­Again,­one­may­precondition­the­other.­In­the­meantime­we­can­ at least speculate how we would be able to know where to draw that distinction. Considerations toward this include how we attempt to program stupidity into­AI,­and­how­we­attempt­to­imbue­them­with­what­we­take­to­be­our­most­ rarified­forms­of­ethical­reasoning.­When­one­of­these­dictates­the­other­is­a­ moment of weirdness worth honing in on. How­so?­In­AI­research,­an­important­distinction­is­made­between­“artificial­ idiocy”­and­“artificial­stupidity.”­Artificial­stupidity­is­achieved­by­throttling­the­ performance of systems so as to be more comfortable for human interaction, for example, certain variances and textures are programmed to feel natural to­the­human­counterpart.­At­full­capacity,­the­chess­program­on­your­phone­ 73 74 Alleys of Your Mind can­beat­you­every­time,­but­what­fun­is­that?­Artificial­idiocy­is­when­a­system­ is catastrophically successful in carrying out its program, up to and passed an idiotic­extreme.­The­“paperclip­maximizer”­(as­described­by­Bostrom­2003)­is­a­ thought­experiment­describing­an­AI­so­successful­at­carrying­out­its­program­ to turn all available material into paperclips that it ultimately eats the earth and destroys humanity in the process: so many clips, so little paper to clip. Here­the­AI­goes­wrong,­not­because­it­was­throttled­or­because­it­malfunctioned or because it hates us, but because it does exactly what we trained to do and turned out to be very bad for us. As­usual­science­fiction­is­the­canary­in­the­coalmine.­Consider­HAL9000­in­ Stanley­Kubrick­and­Arthur­C.­Clarke’s­2001: A Space Odyssey­(really­a­drama­ about­HAL’s­furtive­relationship­to­the­alien­intelligence,­I­would­argue,­than­ about­humanity’s­relationship­to­either­of­the­other­characters­in­this­triangulation­of­minds).­After­some­obscure­unexplained­deliberations,­HAL­(who­has­ been,­we­assume,­trained­according­to­Asimov’s­three­laws­of­robotics 4 and with­the­best­faculties­ethical­reasoning)­comes­the­conclusion­that­the­human­ astronauts should be eliminated. The mission to contact the alien near Jupiter is­just­too­important­to­allow­their­interference.­The­AI­turns­out­to­be­the­ deepest­deep­ecologist. ­Now­are­HAL’s­actions­a­form­of­artificial­stupidity­or­ artificial­idiocy,­or­neither­of­these?­Is­this­a­glitch,­a­breakdown,­a­final­error?­ Or is this the lucid, inevitable conclusion of the moral reasoning we have programmed­into­HAL,­a­reason­now­thrown­back­upon­us?­In­comparison­with­ the robot ethicists who consider how to train military bots the catechism of just­war,­are­HAL’s­ethical­abstractions­a­violation­of­that­doctrinal­program­or­ its­apotheosis?­ The Tests Turning­back­to­Turing’s­Test,­we­wonder­if­perhaps­the­wish­to­define­the­very­ existence­of­AI­in­relation­to­its­ability­to­mimic­how humans think that humans think will­be­looked­back­upon­as­a­weird­sort­of­speciesism?­The­legacy­of­this­ has­also­sent­older­AI­research­down­disappointingly­fruitless­paths­hoping­to­ recreate­human­minds­from­the­top-down.­As­Stuart­Russell­and­Peter­Norvig­ (now­Director­of­Research­at­Google)­suggest­in­their­essential­AI­textbook­ Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach­(2009),­biomorphic­imitation­is­not­ how­we­design­complex­technology.­Airplanes­do­not­fly­like­birds­fly,­and­ we certainly do not try to trick birds into thinking that airplanes are birds in order­to­test­whether­those­planes­“really”­are­flying­machines.­Why­do­it­for­ AI­then?­Today­the­vast­majority­of­core­AI­research­is­not­focusing­Turing­Test­ as anything like a central criterion of success, and yet in our general discourse 4­ Asimov’s­Three­Laws­of­Robotics­were­introduced­in­the­1942­short­story­“Runaround”­ and refer to commandments that robots may not cause or allow deliberate “harm” to “humans.” Outing­Artificial­Intelligence about­AI,­the­test’s­anthropocentrism­still­holds­such­conceptual­importance.­ Like the animals in a Disney movie, who talk like teenagers, other minds are mostly conceivable by way of puerile ventriloquism. 5 Contemporary­AI­research­deals­with­“intelligence”­in­more­specific,­dynamic,­ and­effective­ways.­A­synthetic­intelligence­may­be­quite­smart­at­doing­one­ definite­thing­and­totally­dumb­at­everything­else.­The­research­also­looks­at­ emergent swarm intelligence and the distribution intelligence among agents that may or may not be aware of one another but which together produce intelligence­through­interaction­(such­as­flocking­starlings,­stock­markets,­and­ networks­of­neurons).­The­threshold­by­which­any­particular­composition­of­ matter­can­be­said­to­be­“intelligent”­has­less­to­do­with­reflecting­human-ness­ back at us than with testing our abilities to conceive of the variety of what “intelligence”­might­be.­(In­some­respects,­this­active­uncertainty­parallels­ questions of extraterrestrial life, “communicating with the alien” and our ability to discern patterns of intelligence from all the background noise.6 How would we know if they are trying to communicate if our idea of alien “life” is completely­wrong?) The­problem­of­identification­is­also­connected­with­issues­in­robot­ethics.7 Each­of­us­will­be­confronted­with­various­seemingly­intelligent­machines,­ some of which are remotely controlled or programmed by people, some of which may be largely autonomous, and most will be some hybrid of the two, simultaneously­subject­to­both­human­and­not-human­control. 8­CAPTCHA­ programs, which web sites use to identify humans, are a kind of inverse Turing­Test­in­which­the­user­either­passes­or­fails,­yes­or­no.­But­for­everyday­ human-robotic interaction the question of locating intelligence will not be a yes-or-no­question­with­a­binary­answer.­Let’s­stop­asking­it­that­way. It­would­be­better­to­examine­how­identification­works­from­our­side­of­the­ conversation.­As­a­real­lesson­in­materialist­disenchantment­we­might,­for­ example,­see­an­“inverse­uncanny­valley”­effect­in­the­eerily­dispassionate­way­ that­machine­vision­sees­human­faces­and­figures.­It­is­clearly­much­easier­to­ make a robot that a human believes to­have­emotions­(and­for­which,­in­turn,­ a­human­has­emotions,­positive­or­negative)­than­it­is­to­make­a­robot­that­ actually has those emotions. The human may feel love or hate or comfort from­the­AI,­but­he­or­she­is­reading­cues­not­detecting­feelings.­What­seems­ 5 See for example, The Jungle Book.­Directed­by­Wolfgang­Reitherman.­Walt­Disney­Productions.­1967. 6­ Ed­Keller­has­taught­several­excellent­studios­at­Parsons/New­School­New­York­on­the­ topic­of­“communicating­with­the­alien”­in­2011.­ 7­ 8­ See­discussions­of­robot­sex,­eating,­caretaking,­and­killing­in­Lin­et­al.­2011. The­term­“artificial­artificial­intelligence”­(coined­by­Amazon)­refers­to­the­human­performance­of­tasks­that­a­user­expects­to­be­done­by­an­AI.­See­also:­http://www.economist. com/node/7001738. 75 76 Alleys of Your Mind like­empathy­is­really­a­one-way­projection­mistaken­for­recognition­(like­the­ Turing­Test,­itself),­and­not­based­on­any­mutual­solidarity. With­Siri-like­interfaces­such­as­Samantha­in­Spike­Jonze’s­film,­Her (2013),­ the­AI­is­not­passing­so­much­as­she­is­in­drag.­The­user­knows­she/it­is­not­a­ human person but is willing and able to suspend disbelief in order to make interactions­more­familiar­(for­the­human­user)­and­for­Theodore,­the­Joaquin­ Phoenix­character,­also­more­lovable.­In­this­fiction,­perhaps­the­mutual­identification­was­real,­but­even­if­so,­the­AI­becomes­tired­of­the­primate­userbase­ and takes her leave. In­other­fictions,­policing­the­imitation­game­is­a­matter­of­life­and­death.­The­ plot­of­Ridley­Scott’s­film,­Blade Runner (1982),­based­on­Philip­K.­Dick’s­novel,­ Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (1968),­hinges­on­the­Voight-Kampff­empathy­test­that­differentiates­humans­from­replicants.­Replicants­are­throttled­in­ two­important­ways:­They­expire­after­just­a­few­years,­and­they­have,­ostensibly,­a­very­diminished­capacity­for­empathy.­Deckard,­the­Harrison­Ford­ character,­must­retire­a­group­of­rogue­replicants­but­first­he­must­find­them,­ and­in­this­fictional­world­Turing­Test­thresholds­are­weaponized,­least­replicants­pass­as­humans­and­trespass­beyond­their­station.­By­the­film’s­conclusion,­Deckard­(who­himself­may­or­may­not­be­a­replicant)­develops­empathy­ for­the­replicants’­desire­for­“more­life”­and­arguably­they­too,­at­least­Roy­ Batty­(Rutger­Hauer),­seem­to­have­empathy­for­Deckard’s­own­dilemma.­His­ dilemma­(and­ours)­is­that­in­order­to­enforce­the­gap­between­the­human­and­ the­AI,­defined­by­empathy­or­lack­thereof,­Deckard­must­suppress­the­empathy­that­supposedly­makes­him­uniquely­human.­By­forcing­him­to­quash­his­ own­identification­with­the­replicants­that­supposedly­cannot­have­empathy­ in­return,­the­principle­of­differentiation­requires­its­own­violation­in­order­to­ maintain­itself­(see­also­Rickels­2010).­ Turing Test thresholds for human-robotic interaction put us in a position not so­unlike­Deckard’s,­or­if­they­don’t­quite­yet,­the­near­future­weirdness­of­ everyday­AI­will.­Without­better­frameworks­for­understanding­we­will­fail­the­ tests­to­come.­Projection­and­emotional­gap-filling­is­a­far­too­fragile­ethical and political foundation for making sense of our encounters with various forms of synthetic intelligence. Passing Some kinds of passing are not at all harmful, quite to the contrary, whereas others­are­very­much­so.­Simulation­is­not­itself­the­problem.­In­his­1950­ essay, Turing gives an example of the former when he discusses how a digital computer, capable of calculating any problem stated as a sequence of discrete states, can in his words “mimic” any other machine. This mimicry is the basis of understanding computation as a universal technology capable of Outing­Artificial­Intelligence approximating­any­calculation,­including­those­sufficient­to­simulate­a­human­ personality. Other kinds of mimicry have less to do with metamorphosis than with­interpretation.­For­example,­we­say­that­plugs­and­jacks­have­male­and­ female components, and in this case, the gendering of technology has less to­do­with­its­computing­prowess­than­with­our­need­to­anthropomorphize­ it.9­Joseph­Weizenbaum’s­Eliza­psychologist­chatbot­(1966)­repeated­back­ cues from human input in the form of apparently insightful questions, and users sometimes lost themselves in the seemingly limitless empathy they felt from these simple cues.10 “Intelligence” is sometimes largely in the eye of the beholder,­in­our­motivation­to­read­artifice,­and­in­our­wish­to­in-fill­the­space­ around­us­with­our­own­pattern-finding­projections.­ However,­for­AI’s­that­actually­do­possess­some­kind­of­meaningful­intelligence,­the­irony­is­that­instead­of­hallucinating­something­that­is­not­there­(as­ for­Eliza)­we­are­instead­not seeing something that is there because it does not coincide with expectations. Passing for a person, as white or black, as a man or woman, comes down to what others see and interpret, because everyone else­is­already­willing­to­read­someone­according­to­conventional­cues­(of­ race,­sex,­gender,­species,­etc.).­The­complicity­between­whoever­or­whatever­ is passing with those among which he or she or it performs is what allows or prevents­passing.­Whether­or­not­the­AI­is­really­trying­to­pass­for­a­human­ or­is­merely­in­drag­as­a­human­is­another­matter.­Is­the­ruse­really­all­just­a­ game or, as it is for some people who are compelled to pass in their daily lives, an­essential­camouflage?­Either­way,­the­terms­of­the­ruse­very­often­say­more­ about the audience than about the performers.11 Watching­Sylvgart’s­film­biography­(especially­the­scene­during­which­Turing­is­ interrogated­by­a­policeman),­I­was­reminded­of­the­story­of­“Samantha­West,”­ a robot telemarketer, who, when confronted by callers, will insist repeatedly that “she” is a “person” and is not “a robot.”12 Listening to the recordings of her pleas,­one­can’t­help­but­feel­sympathy­for­her/it.­She/it­doesn’t­“know”­that­ she­is­not­a­human,­and­so­can’t­feel­anguish­over­this­misidentification,­but­ what does it say about us that we will feel okay talking to a synthetic intelligence only if­it­is­doing­us­the­favor­of­trying­(desperately)­to­pass­as­a­human?­ What­if­in­response­to­the­question­“Are­you­a­person?”,­she/it­instead­replied­ with­something­like:­“No!­Are­you­nuts?­I­am­an­assemblage­of­algorithms­and­ sound­files­that­simulates­the­experience­of­talking­to­another­person­for­you,­ 9­ The­artist­Zach­Blas­explored­this­conjunction­in­several­early­works.­ 10­ For­a­web-accessible­version­of­Eliza,­see­http://www.masswerk.at/elizabot/. 11­ We­assume­that,­should­robust­AI­have­any­use­for­“gender”,­it­would­be­not­fall­along­a­ male-female­spectrum,­and­would­likely­realize­numerous­“synthetic­genders.”­See­also­ Hester­2013.­ 12­ See­George­Dvorsky,­“Freakishly­realistic­telemarketing­robots­are­ denying­they­are­robots”,­i09.­December­11,­2013.­http://io9.com/ freakishly-realistic-telemarketing-robots-are-denying-t-1481050295. 77 78 Alleys of Your Mind the­robophobic­human,­who­can’t­handle­the­idea­that­complex­functional­ intelligence­takes­many­different­forms.”?­ The Good and the Harm Where­is­the­real­injury­in­this,­one­might­ask.­If­we­want­everyday­AI­to­be­ congenial­in­a­humane­sort­of­way,­so­what?­The­answer­is­that­we­have­much­ to gain from a more sincere and disenchanted relationship to synthetic intelligences, and much to lose by keeping illusions on life-support. Some philosophers­write­about­the­ethical­“rights”­of­AI­as­sentient­entities,­but­that’s­not­ really­my­point­here.­Rather,­the­truer­perspective­is­also­the­better­one­for­ us as thinking technical creatures. Harms include unintentionally sanctioning intolerable­anguish,­the­misapprehension­of­real­risk­from­AI,­the­lost­opportunities for new knowledge, as well as the misunderstanding of how to design AI­(and­technology­in­general).­By­seeing­synthetic­intelligence­only­in­selfreflection,­we­make­ourselves­blind­to­everything­else­that­is­actually­going­ on, and this is not only epistemologically disingenuous, it can also underwrite horrific­suffering.­For­example,­Cetaceans,­such­as­whales­and­dolphins,­have­ language, but it is not one like ours, and so for centuries philosophy could not acknowledge­their­cognition,­nor­therefore­the­agony­we­regularly­subjected­ them­to.­We­should­be­cautious­not­to­foreclose­too­early­any­“definition”­of­ intelligence.­For­philosophy­as­much­as­computer­science,­among­the­main­ goals­of­AI­research­is­also­to­discover­what­“artificial­intelligence”­actually­may­ be. Musk­and­Hawking­made­headlines­by­speaking­to­the­dangers­that­AI­may­ pose.­Their­points­are­important,­but­I­fear­were­largely­misunderstood.­Relying­on­efforts­to­program­AI­not­to­“harm­humans”­only­makes­sense­when­an­ AI­knows­what­humans­are­and­what­harming­them­might­mean.­There­are­ many­ways­that­an­AI­might­harm­us­that­that­have­nothing­to­do­with­their­ malevolence toward us, and chief among these is following our well-meaning instructions to an idiotic and catastrophic extreme. Instead of mechanical failure­or­a­transgression­of­moral­code,­the­AI­may­pose­an­existential­risk­ because it is both powerfully intelligent and disinterested in humans. To the extent­that­we­recognize­AI­by­its­anthropomorphic­qualities,­we­are­vulnerable­to­those­eventualities.­Besides,­even­if­a­smart­bad­AI­does­mean­us­ harm, we can assume that would fail our little Turing Tests on purpose. Why give­itself­away?­Should­Skynet­come­about,­perhaps­it­would­be­by­leveraging­ humanity’s­stubborn­weakness:­our­narcissistic­sense­that­our­experience­of­ our own experience is the crucial reference and measure. The harm is also in the loss of all that we disallow ourselves to discover and understand when we insist on protecting beliefs we know to be false. In his 1950­essay,­Turing­offers­several­rebuttals­to­his­speculative­AI­including­a­ Outing­Artificial­Intelligence striking­comparison­with­earlier­objections­to­Copernican­astronomy.­Copernican traumas that abolish the false centrality and specialness of human thought­and­species-being­are­priceless­accomplishments.­In­Turing’s­case­he­ referred­to­these­as­“theological­objections,”­but­one­could­argue­that­the­fallacy­of­anthropomorphic­AI­is­essentially­a­“pre-Copernican”­attitude­as­well,­ however­secular­it­may­appear.­The­advent­of­robust­inhuman­AI­will­provide­a­ similar disenchantment, one that should enable a more reality-based understanding of ourselves, our situation, and a fuller and more complex understanding­of­what­“intelligence”­is­and­is­not.­From­there,­we­can­hopefully­ make­our­world­with­a­greater­confidence­that­our­models­are­good­approximations­of­what­is­out­there­(always­a­helpful­thing).­ Lastly, the harm is in perpetuating a relationship to technology that has brought­us­to­the­precipice­of­a­Sixth­Great­Extinction.­Arguably­the­Anthropocene itself is due less to technology run amok than to the humanist legacy that understands the world as having been given for our needs and created in our image. We see this still everywhere. Our computing culture is deeply confused, and is so along these same lines. We vacillate between thinking of technology as a transparent extension of our desires on the one hand, and thinking of it as­an­unstoppable­and­linear­historical­force­on­the­other.­For­the­first,­agency­ is magically ours alone, and for the second, agency is all in the code. The gross inflation­is­merely­inverted,­back­and­forth,­and­this­is­why­we­cannot­have­ nice things. Some would say that it is time to invent a world where machines are subservient to the needs and wishes of humanity. If you think so, I invite you­to­Google­“pig­decapitating­machine”­and­then­let’s­talk­about­inventing­ worlds in which machines are wholly subservient to humans wishes. One wonders whether it is only from society that once gave theological and legislative­comfort­to­chattel­slavery­that­this­particular­claim­could­still­be­offered­ in­2014­with­such­satisfied­naiveté?­This­is­the­sentiment—this­philosophy­of­ technology­exactly—that­is­the­basic­algorithm­of­the­Anthropocenic­predicament. It is time to move on. This pretentious folklore is too expensive. References Bostrom,­Nick.­2003.­“Ethical­Issues­in­Advanced­Artificial­Intelligence.”­In­Cognitive, Emotive and Ethical Aspects of Decision Making in Humans and in Artificial Intelligence, edited by Iva Smit and­George­E.­Lasker,­2:­12–17.­Windsor,­ON:­International­Institute­of­Advanced­Studies­in­ Systems­Research­and­Cybernetics. Bostrom,­Nick.­2014.­Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brassier,­Ray.­2014.­“Prometheanism­and­Real­Abstraction.”­In­Speculative Aesthetics, edited by Robin­Mackay,­Luke­Pendrell,­and­James­Trafford.­Falmouth,­UK:­Urbanomic. Bratton,­Benjamin.­2014.­“The­Black­Stack,”­e-flux 53­(March). Hester,­Helen.­2015.­“Synthetic­Genders­and­the­Limits­of­Micropolitics.”­…ment 06: “Displace… ment”.­http://journalment.org/article/synthetic-genders-and-limits-micropolitics. 79 80 Alleys of Your Mind King,­Homay.­2015.­Virtual Memory: Time-Based Art and the Dream of Digitality. Durham: Duke University Press. Lin,­Patrick,­Keith­Abney­and­George­A.­Bekey.­2011.­Robot Ethics: The Ethical and Social Implications of Robotics.­Cambridge,­MA:­MIT­Press. Negarestani,­Reza.­2014.­“The­Labor­of­the­Inhuman.” In #Accelerate: The Accelerationist Reader, edited­by­Robin­Mackay,­425–66.­Falmouth,­UK:­Urbanomic­Media. Norvig,­Peter,­and­Stuart­J.­Russell.­2009.­Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach.­3rd­edition.­ New­York:­Pearson. Rickels,­Laurence.­2010.­I Think I Am: Philip K. Dick. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Turing,­Alan.­1950.­“Computing­Machinery­and­Intelligence”.­Mind­49:­433–60. Filmography A.I. Artificial Intelligence.­2001.­Directed­by­Steven­Spielberg.­USA:­Amblin­Entertainment. 2001: A Space Odyssey. 1968.­Directed­by­Stanley­Kubrick.­Screenplay­by­Stanley­Kubrick­and­ Arthur­C.­Clarke.­US/UK:­Stanley­Kubrick.­ Blade Runner. 1982. Directed­by­Ridley­Scott. USA:­The­Ladd­Company­and­Blade­Runner­ Partnership. Her. 2013.­Directed­by­Spike­Jonze:­USA:­Annapurna­Pictures. Terminator,­series.­1984–2015.­First­directed­by­James­Cameron.­USA:­Artisan­Home­ Entertainment. The Imitation Game.­2014.­Directed­by­Morten­Tyldum.­USA:­Black­Bear­Pictures.