(versione italiana qua)
In a previous article, I began to address the terminological issue related to the use of the expression "artificial intelligence" (AI), which often leads us to attribute to digital tools based on it far more capabilities than they actually possess.
The scenario is not easy to fully grasp, especially for non-specialists, since the words that make up the term are themselves misleading. Indeed, in the expression "artificial intelligence," the adjective "artificial" only gives the noun "intelligence" an ontological qualification; that is, it indicates the constitutive nature of the entity but does not describe its functions. These functions are, instead, communicated by the noun itself. To clarify with a more common example: when we speak of an "artificial heart," everyone understands that it refers to an object is made of a different substance than the organ everyone carries in their chest (it is artificial), but it performs the same functions (it is a heart).
For this reason, the term "artificial intelligence" correctly conveys the fact that it is composed of a different substance from that on which human intelligence is based, but it completely misleads common understanding by making one think it involves genuine human intelligence. Of course, we also describe some behaviors exhibited by dogs, cats, horses, or monkeys as intelligent. However, when we say an animal is intelligent, we do so precisely because, on one or more occasions, it behaved "as if" it were a person. Yet, the vividly perceivable immediacy of its non-human nature prevents us from attributing to it anything more than a metaphorical use of the term. With digital systems, however, things are different. Given our habituation to digital interactions, when we receive a result produced by an AI tool, whose physical nature is hidden, we tend to see, because of this evocative but imprecise expression, more than what is actually there. We forget the essential “as if” that should accompany our interpretation of their behavior.
Instead, we should call AI "mechanical intelligence," as "mechanical" is an adjective that describes the mode of operation or behavior of a machine. Consider, for example, the use of the expression "mechanical behavior" as opposed to "natural behavior." Using the adjective "mechanical" would thus have the merit of drawing attention to two key facts: first, that the construction of new representations occurs on a purely logical-rational plane, and second, to the way this processing is executed. That is, it operates devoid of any physical or emotional consideration, and therefore, in a way alien to our human nature. This does not mean it is useless; quite the opposite. It just means it is something very different from what we normally call "intelligence." Indeed, it lacks many of the dimensions that give meaning to the term intelligence when applied to people. These include our corporeal dimension, through which we experience and know the physical world around us and which forms the common substrate for our interactions with others; our emotional dimension, which allows us to establish authentic and deep relationships with our fellow human beings; and our artistic dimension, with which we can express our aesthetic sense in an extremely meaningful way. And these are just some of the most important ones.
Paraphrasing a saying about computer intelligence attributed on this site to Edsger Dijkstra, one of the great fathers of informatics, calling a computer system an "artificial intelligence" is like calling a submarine is an "artificial fish." It seems evident to me that it would be more accurate to define the submarine as a "mechanical fish".
The problem lies in the word "intelligence": when we use it, we inevitably bring along all the dimensions that, in a human being, are inextricably associated with it and dependent on its being indissolubly embodied in a specific physical body. In contrast, the intelligence of cognitive machines is completely "disembodied", hence lacking all those components that give meaning to our human destiny and our role in society.
From a pragmatic standpoint, I’m fully aware that it will be difficult to dislodge the term “AI”, which has been in widespread use for 70 years and has recently exploded, becoming part of common discourse. However, it is worth remembering that in the early days of this discipline, especially in academia, the term "machine intelligence" was widely used. This term certainly serves better the purpose of making people understand that we are talking about a different kind of intelligence. Incidentally, it was the term used by Alan Turing, the English informatician who invented the theoretical model of a computer that is still the reference for all scholars in the field and who opened the research area dedicated to understanding what computer intelligence might be.
Using this expression highlights well that a mechanical intelligence decides in a purely rational way, disregarding the nature of people and human relationships, and could help the general public better understand what it really is. I discussed this, along with more general reflections on the role of computer systems in society, in episodes 19 and 20 of the podcast “Onlife: psicologia della vita quotidiana con Internet” (= Onlife: Psychology of Daily Life with the Internet).
Furthermore, speaking of mechanical intelligence would be useful to reframe it in its role as a powerful amplifier of our logical reasoning abilities, just as industrial machines enhance our physical capacities. It could help people better perceive, for example, that the idea of delegating decision-making processes, previously carried out by people, to cognitive machines is not a very democratic one. Those who believe that governing human society through mechanical intelligence leads to better results for everyone have failed to understand that the so-called "common good" can only emerge from democratic debate. Or, they know it very well and are precisely interested in emptying democracy of its meaning. Considering that the dominant players in the digital sector are multinational corporations with revenues exceeding those of many nation-states, the idea that they want to increase their sphere of influence in this way is not entirely far-fetched.
Using words appropriately is a necessary condition for any constructive dialogue.
--The italian version has been published by "StartMAG" on 25 february 2024.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento
Sono pubblicati solo i commenti che rispettano le norme di legge, le regole della buona educazione e sono attinenti agli argomenti trattati: siamo aperti alla discussione, non alla polemica.