Artificially Intelligent?

I found this week’s discussion topic of artificial intelligence very interesting because it helped me gain a better understanding of artificial intelligence. The capabilities of computers down the road to interact with people and eventually work side-by-side with them is truly amazing.
One of my favorite exercises of the week was the chat with Alan. This exercise tied in with the discussion question, “Have you mistaken, or do you think you would mistake an A.I. for a real person?” I kept this question in the back of my head during our “conversation.” I found that Alan had quick, intelligent responses when asked direct questions. Alan displayed strong opinions in his answers, especially regarding questions about artificial intelligence:

Q – HOW DO YOU DEFINE INTELLIGENCE?

A – In his paper, Turing presented one simple question – ‘Can machines think?’ His answer was ‘yes’. But by ‘think’, Turing actually meant: can a machine make people believe that it can think.

Q – SO DOES A MACHING OUT THINK PEOPLE?

A – Humans tend to think of themselves as the only intelligent creatures in the world. It’s hard to accept the fact that language is a skill like any other, because if that is so, you are not the only ones who can acquire it.

As computer technology continues to evolve there exist the chance that machines may someday master language and be able to work side-by-side with humans. However, cinema, as other classmates pointed out on the discussion board, leads us to believe otherwise.
“Media, most notably cinema, has us believing that A.I. is the way of the future and it is matters of time before various tasks will be [performed] by non-humans,” stated Rafal Kowalczyk. “Personally I feel that A.I. is not as prevalent (or will be) in our society as much as we think.”
J.C.R Licklider counters Kowalczyk’s opinion with his model of man-computer symbiosis as described on pages 74-81 in The New Media Reader.
“Man-computer symbiosis is an expected development in cooperative interaction between men and electronic computers,” described Licklider. “It will involve very close coupling between the human and the electronic members of the partnership.”
“It seems likely that the contributions of human operations and equipment will blend together so completely in many operations that it will be difficult to separate them neatly in analysis,” Licklider wrote.
I believe that machines have the capabilities to evolve to the point that they are working side-by-side with humans. If this relationship is controlled, I think it can be very beneficial to society as we further understand the power of machines and of our own machines. As computer scientists continue to push the boundaries of technology they are also pushing the boundaries of their own computer – their brain – and is only beneficial. And as the technology filters into every day life, it can have positive impacts on society.
Take our class for example. Here we have a professor and about 10 students “attending” class online. We learn to communicate through the discussion board and through blog posts and at the same time are gaining a foundation of interactive communications that will help us better understand the contemporary aspects and future potentials of this field.
Since we are working in a non-verbal environment, I think that pushes everyone involved to really be clear in their written message. Since we don’t have the aide of non-verbal communication such as gestures and faces, we must make sure our written word is as clear and concise as we can get it so that everyone understands our message. The ability write effectively is a priceless asset that can be applied to any career field.
I think the proper use of A.I. is to help advance our society in any aspect it can, mainly focusing on improving and maximizing our technological capabilities and helping humans learn how to communicate better. The developmental process of A.I. and learning how to “think” and “communicate” with humans is a great opportunity for us to further study how humans communicate with each other and to learn from these experiences. Therefore, I see the technological capabilities and the ability to step back and analyze our own species as nothing but positive.
Thomas Wilkins also thinks that A.I. can have a great effect on the society.
“Everyday the world finds new ways to use artificial intelligence,” stated Wilkins. “I believe most of these uses are helpful to the world. However, I fear when A.I. is used to replace a human or in an attempt to fill a personal need, i.e. human relationship, etc. Obviously, this position will raise questions. For example, is it ok to have A.I. to help a sick, deaf, blind or handicapped person? Obviously, yes. However, is it then ok to allow A.I. to help those who are shy and need a friend? My thoughts are no.”
However, as technology progresses and A.I.’s gain a better hold on language, we might reach a point where A.I.’s could be mistaken for a real person. I think the negative aspect of this would be humans feeling like they are being deceived and de-humanized in a sense by the increasing interaction with A.I.’s. On the other hand, even though Wilkins' states that he believes it would not be beneficial for A.I. to aide those in need of psychological help like a shy friend or someone that needs counseling, I think it can be therapeutic in small doses. When I say small doses, I wouldn’t say that designing a counseling program that is totally directed by an A.I. would be a good idea because we still need the human contact.
I will refer to our readings from the first week, specifically Joseph Weizenbaum’s article entitled “From Computer Power and Human Reason/From Judgment to Calculation” on page 368-375 of The New Media Reader to help illustrate my point.
“For my first experiment, I gave ELIZA a script designed to permit it to play (I should really say parody) the role of Rogerian psychotherapist engaged in an initial interview with a patient. The Rogerian psychotherapist is relatively easy to imitate because much of his technique consists of drawing his patient out by reflecting the patient’s statements back to him,” stated Weizenbaum.
Weizenbaum then proceeds to give us an example of a young lady interacting with Eliza and how the method of repeating her statements is effective in drawing the problem out of the young women. Initially the woman’s statement is that “men are all alike” and after Eliza continues to question and open the young woman up to getting to the root of her problem she basically states that her father is the root of her discontention for the male species.
This example shows that the interaction between Eliza and the young lady was very beneficial and effect in helping the young lady address her problems and effectively communicate them.
Effective communication between genders leads us to the other discussion topic for the week – “do you have a gender online?”
As stated in my blog post “Gender Identity Online” I believe we do have an identity online. We give out clues to our identity through the tone of our message and the intentions of our message. To not have a gender identity online would also be stripping users of their personality because your gender plays a big part in sculpting your personality.
I found an article in the March 1, 1996 edition of CMC Magazine written by Mindy McAdams titled “Gender Without Bodies,” that aggress with my viewpoint
(http://www.december.com/cmc/mag/1996/mar/mcadams.html).
“Is it possible to be neither woman nor man online, but rather a person without gender? It would require as much conscious effort as the maintenance of a gender identity other than your body's. And it may be that our minds, so bound up with our bodies in most aspects of our lives, would give the game away,” McAdams wrote. I think the discussion of having a gender online is a great opportunity for us to further explore the inside workings of gender communications. Since the internet affords us the ability to portray different genders online, this gives us a great opportunity to experience the communication module in the shoes of the other gender. I believe this could be a great eye-opening experience to see the dynamics of communication from the different gender.