SANDY: But you wouldn’t call it “simulated sadness”, would you?
PAT: No, of course not. I think it’s real.
SANDY: It’s hard to avoid use of such technological or mentalistic terms. I believe they’re quite justified, although they shouldn’t be carried too far. They simply don’t have the same richness of meaning when applied to present day chess programs as when applied to people.
CHRIS: I still can’t see that intelligence has to involve emotions. Why couldn’t you imagine an intelligence that simply calculates and has no feelings?
SANDY: A couple of answers here! Number one, any intelligence has to have motivations. It’s simply not the case, whatever many people may think, that machines could think any more “objectively” than people do. Machines, when they look at a scene, will have to focus and filter that scene down into some preconceived categories, just as a person does. It means giving more weight to some things than others. This happens on every level of processing.
PAT: What do you mean?
SANDY: Take me right now, for instance. You might think that I’m just making some intellectual points, and I wouldn’t need emotions to do that. But what makes me care about these points? Why did I stress the word “care” so heavily? Because I’m emotionally involved in this conversation! People talk to each other out of conviction, not out of hollow, mechanical reflexes. Even the most intellectual conversation is driven by underlying passions. There’s an emotional undercurrent to every conversation—it’ s the fact that the speakers want to be listened to, understood, and respected for what they are saying.
PAT: It sounds to me as if all you’re saying is that people need to be interested in what they’re saying, otherwise a conversation dies.
SANDY: Right! I wouldn’t bother to talk to anyone if I weren’t motivated by interest. And interest is just another name for a whole constellation of subconscious biases. When I talk, all my biases work together and what you perceive on the surface level is my style, my personality. But that style arises from an immense number of tiny priorities, biases, leanings. When you add up a million of these interacting together, you get something that amounts to a lot of desires. It just all adds up! And that brings me to the other point, about feelingless calculation. Sure, that exists—in a cash register, a pocket calculator. I’d even say it’s true of all today’s computer programs. But eventually, when you put enough feelingless calculations together in a huge coordinated organization, you’ll see something that has properties on another level. You can see it—in fact , you have to see it—not as a bunch of little calculations, but as a system of tendencies and desires and beliefs and so on. When things get complicated enough, you’re forced to change your level of description. To some extent that’s already happening, which is why we use words such as “want,” “think,” “try,” and “hope,” to describe chess programs and other attempts at mechanical thought. Dennett calls that kind of level switch by the observer “adopting the intentional stance.” The really interesting things in AI will only begin to happen, I’d guess, when the program itself adopts the intentional stance towards itself!
CHRIS: That would be a very strange sort of level-crossing feedback loop.
SANDY: It certainly would. Of course, in my opinion, it’s highly premature for anyone to adopt the intentional stance, in the full force of the term, towards today’s programs. At least that’s my opinion.
CHRIS: For me an important related question is: To what extent is it valid to adopt the intentional stance toward beings other than humans?
PAT: I would certainly adopt the intentional stance toward mammals.
SANDY: I vote for that.
CHRIS: That’s interesting! How can that be, Sandy? Surely you wouldn’t claim that a dog or cat can pass the Turing test? Yet don’t you think that the Turing test is the only way to test for the presence of thought? How can you have these beliefs at once?
SANDY: Hmm.... All right. I guess I’m forced to admit that the Turing test works only above a certain level of consciousness. There can be thinking beings that could fail the test—but on the other hand, anything that passes it, in my opinion, would be a genuinely conscious thinking being.
PAT: How can you think of a computer as a conscious being? I apologize if this sounds a stereotype, but when I think of conscious beings, I just can’t connect that thought with machines. To me consciousness is connected with soft, warm bodies, silly though that may seem.
CHRIS: That does sound odd, coming from a biologist. Don’t you deal with life in terms of chemistry and physics for all that magic to seem to vanish?
PAT: Not really. Sometimes the chemistry and physics just increase the feeling that there’s something magical going on down there! Anyway, I can’t always integrate my scientific knowledge with my gut-level feelings.
CHRIS: I guess I share that trait.
PAT: So how do you deal with rigid preconceptions like mine?
SANDY: I’d try to dig down under the surface of your concept of “machines” and get at the intuitive connotations that lurk there, out of sight, but deeply influencing your opinions. I think that we all have a holdover image from the Industrial Revolution that sees machines as clunky iron contraptions gawkily moving under the pressure of some loudly chugging engine. Possibly that’s even how the computer inventor Charles Babbage viewed people! After all, he called his magnificent many-geared computer the Analytical Engine.
PAT: Well, I certainly don’t think people are just fancy steam shovels of even electric can openers. There’s something about people, something that—that they’ve got a sort of flame inside them, something alive, something that flickers unpredictably, wavering, uncertain—but something creative!
SANDY: Great! That’s just the sort of thing I wanted to hear. It’s very human to think that way. Your flame image makes me think of candles, of fires, of thunderstorms with lightning dancing all over the sky in crazy patterns. But do you realize that just that kind of pattern is visible on a computer’s console? The flickering lights form amazing chaotic sparkling patterns. It’s such a far cry from heaps of lifeless clanking metal! It is flamelike, by God! Why don’t you let the word “machine” conjure images of dancing patterns of light rather than giant steam shovels?
CHRIS: That’s a beautiful image, Sandy. It changes my sense of mechanism from being matter-oriented to being pattern-oriented. It makes me try to visualize the thoughts in my mind—these thoughts right now, even—as a huge spray of tiny pulses flickering in my brain.
SANDY: That’s quite a poetic self-portrait for a spray of flickers to have come up with!
CHRIS: Thank you. But still, I’m not totally convinced that a machine is all that I am. I admit, my concept of machines probably does suffer from anachronistic subconscious flavours, but I’m afraid I can’t change such a deeply rooted sense in a flash.