Artificial Intelligence and the Problem of Judgment

IF 1.3 3区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS Ethics & International Affairs Pub Date : 2023-08-29 DOI:10.1017/S089267942300014X
Zeynep Pamuk
{"title":"Artificial Intelligence and the Problem of Judgment","authors":"Zeynep Pamuk","doi":"10.1017/S089267942300014X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Will existing forms of artificial intelligence (AI) lead to genuine intelligence? How is AI changing our society and politics? This essay examines the answers to these questions in Brian Cantwell Smith's The Promise of Artificial Intelligence and Mark Coeckelbergh's The Political Philosophy of AI with a focus on their central concern with judgment—whether AI can possess judgment and how developments in AI are affecting human judgment. First, I argue that the existentialist conception of judgment that Smith defends is highly idealized. While it may be an appropriate standard for intelligence, its implications for when and how AI should be deployed are not as clear as Smith suggests. Second, I point out that the concern with the displacement of judgment in favor of “reckoning” (or calculation) predates the rise of AI. The meaning and implications of this trend will become clearer if we move beyond ontology and metaphysics and into political philosophy, situating technological changes in their social context. Finally, I suggest that Coeckelbergh's distinctly political conception of judgment might offer a solution to the important boundary-drawing problem between tasks requiring judgment and those requiring reckoning, thus filling a gap in Smith's argument and clarifying its political stakes.","PeriodicalId":11772,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & International Affairs","volume":"32 1","pages":"232 - 243"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics & International Affairs","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S089267942300014X","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Will existing forms of artificial intelligence (AI) lead to genuine intelligence? How is AI changing our society and politics? This essay examines the answers to these questions in Brian Cantwell Smith's The Promise of Artificial Intelligence and Mark Coeckelbergh's The Political Philosophy of AI with a focus on their central concern with judgment—whether AI can possess judgment and how developments in AI are affecting human judgment. First, I argue that the existentialist conception of judgment that Smith defends is highly idealized. While it may be an appropriate standard for intelligence, its implications for when and how AI should be deployed are not as clear as Smith suggests. Second, I point out that the concern with the displacement of judgment in favor of “reckoning” (or calculation) predates the rise of AI. The meaning and implications of this trend will become clearer if we move beyond ontology and metaphysics and into political philosophy, situating technological changes in their social context. Finally, I suggest that Coeckelbergh's distinctly political conception of judgment might offer a solution to the important boundary-drawing problem between tasks requiring judgment and those requiring reckoning, thus filling a gap in Smith's argument and clarifying its political stakes.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
人工智能与判断问题
现有的人工智能(AI)形式会导致真正的智能吗?人工智能如何改变我们的社会和政治?本文在Brian Cantwell Smith的《人工智能的承诺》和Mark coeckelberg的《人工智能的政治哲学》中探讨了这些问题的答案,重点关注了他们对判断的核心关注——人工智能是否能够拥有判断力,以及人工智能的发展如何影响人类的判断力。首先,我认为斯密所捍卫的存在主义判断概念是高度理想化的。虽然它可能是一个合适的智能标准,但它对何时以及如何部署人工智能的影响并不像史密斯所说的那样明确。其次,我指出,在人工智能兴起之前,人们就对“判断”被“清算”(或计算)取代的担忧。如果我们超越本体论和形而上学,进入政治哲学,将技术变革置于其社会背景中,这种趋势的意义和含义将变得更加清晰。最后,我认为coeckelberg关于判断的鲜明的政治概念可能为需要判断的任务和需要清算的任务之间的重要边界划分问题提供了一个解决方案,从而填补了史密斯论证中的空白,并澄清了其政治利害关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
期刊最新文献
Accountability for the Taking of Human Life with LAWS in War Toward a Balanced Approach: Bridging the Military, Policy, and Technical Communities How to End a War: Essays on Justice, Peace, and Repair, Graham Parsons and Mark A. Wilson, eds. (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2023), 207 pp., cloth $110, eBook $110. Backfire: How Sanctions Reshape the World Against U.S. Interests, Agathe Demarais (New York: Columbia University Press, 2022) 304 pp., cloth $30, eBook $29.99. The Hegemon's Tool Kit: US Leadership and the Politics of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Regime, Rebecca Davis Gibbons (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2022), 240 pp., cloth $49.95, eBook $32.99.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1