在工匠的花园里人工智能、阿兰-图灵和斯坦利-卡维尔

IF 4.2 3区 计算机科学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE Minds and Machines Pub Date : 2024-06-13 DOI:10.1007/s11023-024-09676-y
Marie Theresa O’Connor
{"title":"在工匠的花园里人工智能、阿兰-图灵和斯坦利-卡维尔","authors":"Marie Theresa O’Connor","doi":"10.1007/s11023-024-09676-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>There is rising skepticism within public discourse about the nature of AI. By skepticism, I mean doubt about what we know about AI. At the same time, some AI speakers are raising the kinds of issues that usually really matter in analysis, such as issues relating to consent and coercion. This essay takes up the question of whether we should analyze a conversation differently because it is between a human and AI instead of between two humans and, if so, why. When is it okay, for instance, to read the phrases “please stop” or “please respect my boundaries” as meaning something other than what those phrases ordinarily mean – and what makes it so? If we ignore denials of consent, or put them in scare quotes, we should have a good reason. This essay focuses on two thinkers, Alan Turing and Stanley Cavell, who in different ways answer the question of whether it matters that a speaker is a machine. It proposes that Cavell’s work on the problem of other minds, in particular Cavell’s story in <i>The Claim of Reason </i>of an automaton whom he imagines meeting in a craftsman’s garden, may be especially helpful in thinking about how to analyze what AI has to say.</p>","PeriodicalId":51133,"journal":{"name":"Minds and Machines","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"In the Craftsman’s Garden: AI, Alan Turing, and Stanley Cavell\",\"authors\":\"Marie Theresa O’Connor\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11023-024-09676-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>There is rising skepticism within public discourse about the nature of AI. By skepticism, I mean doubt about what we know about AI. At the same time, some AI speakers are raising the kinds of issues that usually really matter in analysis, such as issues relating to consent and coercion. This essay takes up the question of whether we should analyze a conversation differently because it is between a human and AI instead of between two humans and, if so, why. When is it okay, for instance, to read the phrases “please stop” or “please respect my boundaries” as meaning something other than what those phrases ordinarily mean – and what makes it so? If we ignore denials of consent, or put them in scare quotes, we should have a good reason. This essay focuses on two thinkers, Alan Turing and Stanley Cavell, who in different ways answer the question of whether it matters that a speaker is a machine. It proposes that Cavell’s work on the problem of other minds, in particular Cavell’s story in <i>The Claim of Reason </i>of an automaton whom he imagines meeting in a craftsman’s garden, may be especially helpful in thinking about how to analyze what AI has to say.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51133,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Minds and Machines\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Minds and Machines\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"94\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-024-09676-y\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"计算机科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minds and Machines","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-024-09676-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在公众讨论中,对人工智能本质的怀疑日益高涨。我所说的怀疑论,是指对我们所了解的人工智能的怀疑。与此同时,一些人工智能演讲者提出了通常在分析中真正重要的问题,例如与同意和胁迫有关的问题。本文探讨的问题是,我们是否应该因为对话是在人类与人工智能之间而不是两个人类之间进行的,就对对话进行不同的分析?例如,什么时候可以将 "请停止 "或 "请尊重我的界限 "这两个短语理解为不同于这些短语通常含义的意思?如果我们无视拒绝同意的说法,或者把它们放在吓人的引号里,我们应该有充分的理由。这篇文章聚焦于两位思想家,艾伦-图灵和斯坦利-卡维尔,他们以不同的方式回答了说话者是机器是否重要的问题。文章提出,卡维尔关于其他思维问题的研究,尤其是卡维尔在《理性的诉求》中讲述的他想象中在工匠的花园里遇到的自动机的故事,可能特别有助于思考如何分析人工智能要说的话。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
In the Craftsman’s Garden: AI, Alan Turing, and Stanley Cavell

There is rising skepticism within public discourse about the nature of AI. By skepticism, I mean doubt about what we know about AI. At the same time, some AI speakers are raising the kinds of issues that usually really matter in analysis, such as issues relating to consent and coercion. This essay takes up the question of whether we should analyze a conversation differently because it is between a human and AI instead of between two humans and, if so, why. When is it okay, for instance, to read the phrases “please stop” or “please respect my boundaries” as meaning something other than what those phrases ordinarily mean – and what makes it so? If we ignore denials of consent, or put them in scare quotes, we should have a good reason. This essay focuses on two thinkers, Alan Turing and Stanley Cavell, who in different ways answer the question of whether it matters that a speaker is a machine. It proposes that Cavell’s work on the problem of other minds, in particular Cavell’s story in The Claim of Reason of an automaton whom he imagines meeting in a craftsman’s garden, may be especially helpful in thinking about how to analyze what AI has to say.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Minds and Machines
Minds and Machines 工程技术-计算机:人工智能
CiteScore
12.60
自引率
2.70%
发文量
30
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Minds and Machines, affiliated with the Society for Machines and Mentality, serves as a platform for fostering critical dialogue between the AI and philosophical communities. With a focus on problems of shared interest, the journal actively encourages discussions on the philosophical aspects of computer science. Offering a global forum, Minds and Machines provides a space to debate and explore important and contentious issues within its editorial focus. The journal presents special editions dedicated to specific topics, invites critical responses to previously published works, and features review essays addressing current problem scenarios. By facilitating a diverse range of perspectives, Minds and Machines encourages a reevaluation of the status quo and the development of new insights. Through this collaborative approach, the journal aims to bridge the gap between AI and philosophy, fostering a tradition of critique and ensuring these fields remain connected and relevant.
期刊最新文献
Mapping the Ethics of Generative AI: A Comprehensive Scoping Review A Justifiable Investment in AI for Healthcare: Aligning Ambition with Reality fl-IRT-ing with Psychometrics to Improve NLP Bias Measurement Artificial Intelligence for the Internal Democracy of Political Parties A Causal Analysis of Harm
×
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