In the last months I was engaged with the topic of text-generating algorithms and the possible impact for a scientific discourse (some first notices to this discussion you can find here (https://www.uffmm.org/2023/08/24/homo-sapiens-empirical-and-sustained-empirical-theories-emotions-and-machines-a-sketch/)). In this context it is important to clarify the role and structure of human actors as well as the concept of Intelligence. Meanwhile I have abandoned the word Intelligence completely because the inflationary use in today mainstream pulverises any meaning. Even in one discipline — like psychology — you can find many different concepts. In this context I have read the book of Stanovich et.al to have a prominent example of using the concept of intelligence, there combined with the concept of rationality, which is no less vague.
Introduction
The book “The Rationality Quotient” from 2016 represents not the beginning of a discourse but is a kind of summary of a long lasting discourse with many publications before. This makes this book interesting, but also difficult to read in the beginning, because the book is using nearly on every page theoretical terms, which are assumed to be known to the reader and cites other publications without giving sufficient explanations why exactly these cited publications are important. This is no argument against this book but sheds some light on the reader, who has to learn a lot to understand the text.
A text with the character of summing up its subject is good, because it has a confirmed meaning about the subject which enables a kind of clarity which is typical for that state of elaborated point of view.
In the following review it is not the goal to give a complete account of every detail of this book but only to present the main thesis and then to analyze the used methods and the applied epistemological framework.
Main Thesis of the Book
The reviewing starts with the basic assumptions and the main thesis.
FIGURE 1 : The beginning. Note: the number ‘2015’ has to be corrected to ‘2016’.
FIGURE 2 : First outline of cognition. Note: the number ‘2015’ has to be corrected to ‘2016’.
As mentioned in the introduction you will in the book not find a real overview about the history of psychological research dealing with the concept of Intelligence and also no overview about the historical discourse to the concept of Rationality, whereby the last concept has also a rich tradition in Philosophy. Thus, somehow you have to know it.
There are some clear warnings with regard to the fuzziness of the concept rationality (p.3) as well as to the concept of intelligence (p.15). From a point of view of Philosophy of Science it could be interesting to know what the circumstances are which are causing such a fuzziness, but this is not a topic of the book. The book talks within its own selected conceptual paradigm. Being in the dilemma, of what kind of intelligence paradigm one wants to use, the book has decided to work with the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CTC) paradigm, which some call a theory. [1]
Directly from the beginning it is explained that the discussion of Intelligence is missing a clear explanation of the full human model of cognition (p.15) and that intelligence tests therefore are mostly measuring only parts of human cognitive functions. (p.21)
Thus let us have a more detailed look to the scenario.
[1] For a first look to the Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattell%E2%80%93Horn%E2%80%93Carroll_theory, a first overview.
Which point of View?
The book starts with a first characterization of the concept of Rationality within a point of view which is not really clear. From different remarks one gets some hints to modern Cognitive Science (4,6), to Decision Theory (4) and Probability Calculus (9), but a clear description is missing.
And it is declared right from the beginning, that the main aim of the book is the Construction of a rational Thinking Test (4), because for the authors the used Intelligence Tests — later reduced to the Carroll-Horn-Carroll (CHC) type of intelligence test (16) — are too narrow in what they are measuring (15, 16, 21).
Related to the term Rationality the book characterizes some requirements which the term rationality should fulfill (e.g. ‘Rationality as a continuum’ (4), ’empirically based’ (4), ‘operationally grounded’ (4), a ‘strong definition’ (5), a ‘normative one’ (5), ‘normative model of optimum judgment’ (5)), but it is more or less open, what these requirements imply and what tacit assumptions have to be fulfilled, that this will work.
The two requirements ’empirically based’ as well as ‘operationally grounded’ point in the direction of an tacitly assumed concept of an empirical theory, but exactly this concept — and especially in association with the term cognitive science — isn’t really clear today.
Because the authors make in the next pages a lot of statements which claim to be serious, it seems to be important for the discussion in this review text to clarify the conditions of the ‘meaning of language expressions’ and of being classified as ‘being true’.
If we assume — tentatively — that the authors assume a scientific theory to be primarily a text whose expressions have a meaning which can transparently be associated with an empirical fact and if this is the case, then the expression will be understood as being grounded and classified as true, then we have characterized a normal text which can be used in everyday live for the communication of meanings which can become demonstrated as being true.
Is there a difference between such a ‘normal text’ and a ‘scientific theory’? And, especially here, where the context should be a scientific theory within the discipline of cognitive science: what distinguishes a normal text from a ‘scientific theory within cognitive science’?
Because the authors do not explain their conceptual framework called cognitive science we recur here to a most general characterization [2,3] which tells us, that cognitive science is not a single discipline but an interdisciplinary study which is taking from many different disciplines. It has not yet reached a state where all used methods and terms are embedded in one general coherent framework. Thus the relationship of the used conceptual frameworks is mostly fuzzy, unclear. From this follows directly, that the relationship of the different terms to each other — e.g. like ‘underlying preferences’ and ‘well ordered’ — is within such a blurred context rather unclear.
Even the simple characterization of an expression as ‘having an empirical meaning’ is unclear: what are the kinds of empirical subjects and the used terms? According to the list of involved disciplines the disciplines linguistics [4], psychology [5] or neuroscience [6] — besides others — are mentioned. But every of these disciplines is itself today a broad field of methods, not integrated, dealing with a multifaceted subject.
Using an Auxiliary Construction as a Minimal Point of Reference
Instead of becoming somehow paralyzed from these one-and-all characterizations of the individual disciplines one can try to step back and taking a look to basic assumptions about empirical perspectives.
If we take a group of HumanObservers which shall investigate these subjects we could make the following assumptions:
Empirical Linguistics is dealing with languages, spoken as well as written by human persons, within certain environments, and these can be observed as empirical entities.
Empirical Psychology is dealing with the behavior of human persons (a kind of biological systems) within certain environments, and these can be observed.
Empirical Neuroscience is dealing with the brain as part of a body which is located in some environment, and this all can be observed.
The empirical observations of certain kinds of empirical phenomena can be used to define more abstract concepts, relations, and processes. These more abstract concepts, relations, and processes have ‘as such’ no empirical meaning! They constitute a formal framework which has to become correlated with empirical facts to get some empirical meaning. As it is known from philosophy of science [7] the combination of empirical concepts within a formal framework of abstracts terms can enable ‘abstract meanings’ which by logical conclusions can produce statements which are — in the moment of stating them — not empirically true, because ‘real future’ has not yet happened. And on account of the ‘generality’ of abstract terms compared to the finiteness and concreteness of empirical facts it can happen, that the inferred statements never will become true. Therefore the mere usage of abstract terms within a text called scientific theory does not guarantee valid empirical statements.
And in general one has to state, that a coherent scientific theory including e.g. linguistics, psychology and neuroscience, is not yet in existence.
To speak of cognitive science as if this represents a clearly defined coherent discipline seems therefore to be misleading.
This raises questions about the project of a constructing a coherent rational thinking test (CART).
[2] See ‘cognitive science’ in wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science
[3] See too ‘cognitive science’ in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cognitive-science/
[4] See ‘linguistics’ in wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics
[5] See ‘psychology’ in wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology
[6] See ‘neuroscience’ in wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience
[7] See ‘philosophy of science’ in wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
‘CART’ TEST FRAMEWORK – A Reconstruction from the point of View of Philosophy of Science
Before I will dig deeper into the theory I try to understand the intended outcome of this theory as some point of reference. The following figure 3 gives some hints.
FIGURE 3 : Outline of the Test Framework based on the Appendix in Stanovich et.al 2016. This Outline is a Reconstruction by the author of this review.
It seems to be important to distinguish at least three main parts of the whole scientific endeavor:
The group of scientists which has decided to process a certain problem.
The generated scientific theory as a text.
The description of a CART Test, which describes a procedure, how the abstract terms of the theory can be associated with real facts.
From the group of scientists (Stanovich et al.) we know that they understand themselves as cognitive scientists (without having a clear characterization, what this means concretely).
The intended scientific theory as a text is here assumed to be realized in the book, which is here the subject of a review.
The description of a CART Test is here taken from the appendix of the book.
To understand the theory it is interesting to see, that in the real test the test system (assumed here as a human person) has to read (and hear?) a instruction, how to proceed with a task form, and then the test system (a human person) has to process the test form in the way it has understood the instructions and the test form as it is.
The result is a completed test form.
And it is then this completed test form which will be rated according to the assumed CART theory.
This complete paradigm raises a whole bunch of questions which to answer here in full is somehow out of range.
Mix-Up of Abstract Terms
Because the Test Scenario presupposes a CART theory and within this theory some kind of a model of intended test users it can be helpful to have a more closer look to this assumed CART model, which is located in a person.
FIGURE 4 : General outline of the logic behind CART according to Stanovich et al. (2016).
The presented cognitive architecture shall present a framework for the CART (Comprehensive Assessment of Rational Thinking), whereby this framework is including a model. The model is not only assumed to contextualize and classify heuristics and tasks, but it also presents Rationality in a way that one can deduce mental characteristics included in rationality.(cf. 37)
Because the term Rationality is not an individual empirical fact but an abstract term of a conceptual framework, this term has as such no meaning. The meaning of this abstract term has to be arranged by relations to other abstract terms which themselves are sufficiently related to concrete empirical statements. And these relations between abstract terms and empirical facts (represented as language expressions) have to be represented in a manner, that it is transparent how the the measured facts are related to the abstract terms.
Here Stanovich et al. is using another abstract term Mind, which is associated with characteristics called mental characteristics: Reflective mind, Algorithmic Level, and Mindware.
And then the text tells that Rationality is presenting mental characteristics. What does this mean? Is rationality different from the mind, who has some characteristics, which can be presented from rationality using somehow the mind, or is rationality nevertheless part of the mind and manifests themself in these mental characteristics? But what kind of the meaning could this be for an abstract term like rationality to be part of the mind? Without an explicit model associated with the term Mind which arranges the other abstract term Rationality within this model there exists no meaning which can be used here.
These considerations are the effect of a text, which uses different abstract terms in a way, which is rather unclear. In a scientific theory this should not be the case.
Measuring Degrees of Rationality
In the beginning of chapter 4 Stanovich et al. are looking back to chapter 1. Here they built up a chain of arguments which illustrate some general perspective (cf. 63):
Rationality has degrees.
These degrees of rationality can be measured.
Measurement is realized by experimental methods of cognitive science.
The measuring is based on the observable behavior of people.
The observable behavior can manifest whether the individual actor (a human person) follows assumed preferences related to an assumed axiom of choice.
Observable behavior which is classified as manifesting assumed internal preferences according to an assumed internal axiom of choice can show descriptive and procedural invariance.
Based on these deduced descriptive and procedural invariance, it can be inferred further, that these actors are behaving as if they are maximizing utility.
It is difficult to assess utility maximization directly.
It is much easier to assess whether one of the axioms of rational choice is being violated.
These statements characterize the Logic of the CART according to Stanovich et al. (cf.64)
A major point in this argumentation is the assumption, that observable behavior is such, that one can deduce from the properties of this behavior those attributes/ properties, which point (i) to an internal model of an axiom of choice, (ii) to internal processes, which manifest the effects of this internal model, (iii) to certain characteristics of these internal processes which allow the deduction of the property of maximizing utility or not.
These are very strong assumptions.
If one takes further into account the explanations from the pages 7f about the required properties for an abstract term axiom of choice (cf. figure 1) then these assumptions appear to be very demanding.
Can it be possible to extract the necessary meaning out of observable behavior in a way, which is clear enough by empirical standards, that this behavior shows property A and not property B ?
As we know from the description of the CART in the appendix of the book (cf. figure 3) the real behavior assumed for an CART is the (i) reading (or hearing?) of an instruction communicated by ordinary English, and then (ii) a behavior deduced from the understanding of the instruction, which (iii) manifests themself in the reading of a form with a text and filling out this form in predefined positions in a required language.
This described procedure is quite common throughout psychology and similar disciplines. But it is well known, that the understanding of language instructions is very error-prone. Furthermore, the presentation of a task as a text is inevitably highly biased and additionally too very error-prone with regard to the understanding (this is a reason why in usability testing purely text-based tests are rather useless).
The point is, that the empirical basis is not given as a protocol of observations of language free behavior but of a behavior which is nearly completely embedded in the understanding and handling of texts. This points to the underlying processes of text understanding which are completelyinternal to the actor. There exists no prewired connection between the observable strings of signs constituting a text and the possible meaning which can be organized by the individual processes of text understanding.
Stopping Here
Having reached this point of reading and trying to understand I decided to stop here: to many questions on all levels of a scientific discourse and the relationships between main concepts and terms appear in the book of Stanovich et al. to be not clear enough. I feel therefore confirmed in my working hypothesis from the beginning, that the concept of intelligence today is far too vague, too ambiguous to contain any useful kernel of meaning any more. And concepts like Rationality, Mind (and many others) seem to do not better.
Chatting with chatGPT4
Since April 2023 I have started to check the ability of chatGPT4 to contribute to a philosophical and scientific discourse. The working hypothesis is, that chatGPT4 is good in summarizing the common concepts, which are used in public texts, but chatGPT is not able for critical evaluations, not for really new creative ideas and in no case for systematic analysis of used methods, used frameworks, their interrelations, their truth-conditons and much more, what it cannot. Nevertheless, it is a good ‘common sense check’. Until now I couldn’t learn anything new from these chats.
If you have read this review with all the details and open questions you will be perhaps a little bit disappointed about the answers from chatGPT4. But keep calm: it is a bit helpful.
Translation: This text is a translation from the German Version into English with the aid of the software deepL.com as well as with chatGPT4, moderated by the author. The style of the two translators is different. The author is not good enough to classify which translator is ‘better’.
CONTEXT
This text is the outcome of a conference held at the Technical University of Darmstadt (Germany) with the title: Discourses of disruptive digital technologies using the example of AI text generators ( https://zevedi.de/en/topics/ki-text-2/ ). A German version of this article will appear in a book from de Gruyter as open access in the beginning of 2024.
Collective human-machine intelligence and text generation. A transdisciplinary analysis.
Abstract
Based on the conference theme “AI – Text and Validity. How do AI text generators change scientific discourse?” as well as the special topic “Collective human-machine intelligence using the example of text generation”, the possible interaction relationship between text generators and a scientific discourse will be played out in a transdisciplinary analysis. For this purpose, the concept of scientific discourse will be specified on a case-by-case basis using the text types empirical theory as well as sustained empirical theory in such a way that the role of human and machine actors in these discourses can be sufficiently specified. The result shows a very clear limitation of current text generators compared to the requirements of scientific discourse. This leads to further fundamental analyses on the example of the dimension of time with the phenomenon of the qualitatively new as well as on the example of the foundations of decision-making to the problem of the inherent bias of the modern scientific disciplines. A solution to the inherent bias as well as the factual disconnectedness of the many individual disciplines is located in the form of a new service of transdisciplinary integration by re-activating the philosophy of science as a genuine part of philosophy. This leaves the question open whether a supervision of the individual sciences by philosophy could be a viable path? Finally, the borderline case of a world in which humans no longer have a human counterpart is pointed out.
AUDIO: Keyword Sound
STARTING POINT
This text takes its starting point from the conference topic “AI – Text and Validity. How do AI text generators change scientific discourses?” and adds to this topic the perspective of a Collective Human-Machine Intelligence using the example of text generation. The concepts of text and validity, AI text generators, scientific discourse, and collective human-machine intelligence that are invoked in this constellation represent different fields of meaning that cannot automatically be interpreted as elements of a common conceptual framework.
TRANSDISCIPLINARY
In order to be able to let the mentioned terms appear as elements in a common conceptual framework, a meta-level is needed from which one can talk about these terms and their possible relations to each other. This approach is usually located in the philosophy of science, which can have as its subject not only single terms or whole propositions, but even whole theories that are compared or possibly even united. The term transdisciplinary [1] , which is often used today, is understood here in this philosophy of science understanding as an approach in which the integration of different concepts is redeemed by introducing appropriate meta-levels. Such a meta-level ultimately always represents a structure in which all important elements and relations can gather.
[1] Jürgen Mittelstraß paraphrases the possible meaning of the term transdisciplinarity as a “research and knowledge principle … that becomes effective wherever a solely technical or disciplinary definition of problem situations and problem solutions is not possible…”. Article Methodological Transdisciplinarity, in LIFIS ONLINE, www.leibniz-institut.de, ISSN 1864-6972, p.1 (first published in: Technology Assessment – Theory and Practice No.2, 14.Jg., June 2005, 18-23). In his text Mittelstrass distinguishes transdisciplinarity from the disciplinary and from the interdisciplinary. However, he uses only a general characterization of transdisciplinarity as a research guiding principle and scientific form of organization. He leaves the concrete conceptual formulation of transdisciplinarity open. This is different in the present text: here the transdisciplinary theme is projected down to the concreteness of the related terms and – as is usual in philosophy of science (and meta-logic) – realized by means of the construct of meta-levels.
SETTING UP A STRUCTURE
Here the notion of scientific discourse is assumed as a basic situation in which different actors can be involved. The main types of actors considered here are humans, who represent a part of the biological systems on planet Earth as a kind of Homo sapiens, and text generators, which represent a technical product consisting of a combination of software and hardware.
It is assumed that humans perceive their environment and themselves in a species-typical way, that they can process and store what they perceive internally, that they can recall what they have stored to a limited extent in a species-typical way, and that they can change it in a species-typical way, so that internal structures can emerge that are available for action and communication. All these elements are attributed to human cognition. They are working partially consciously, but largely unconsciously. Cognition also includes the subsystem language, which represents a structure that on the one hand is largely species-typically fixed, but on the other hand can be flexibly mapped to different elements of cognition.
In the terminology of semiotics [2] the language system represents a symbolic level and those elements of cognition, on which the symbolic structures are mapped, form correlates of meaning, which, however, represent a meaning only insofar as they occur in a mapping relation – also called meaning relation. A cognitive element as such does not constitute meaning in the linguistic sense. In addition to cognition, there are a variety of emotional factors that can influence both cognitive processes and the process of decision-making. The latter in turn can influence thought processes as well as action processes, consciously as well as unconsciously. The exact meaning of these listed structural elements is revealed in a process model [3] complementary to this structure.
[2] See, for example, Winfried Nöth: Handbuch der Semiotik. 2nd, completely revised edition. Metzler, Stuttgart/Weimar, 2000
[3] Such a process model is presented here only in partial aspects.
SYMBOLIC COMMUNICATION SUB-PROCESS
What is important for human actors is that they can interact in the context of symbolic communication with the help of both spoken and written language. Here it is assumed – simplistically — that spoken language can be mapped sufficiently accurately into written language, which in the standard case is called text. It should be noted that texts only represent meaning if the text producers involved, as well as the text recipients, have a meaning function that is sufficiently similar. For texts by human text producers it is generally true that, with respect to concrete situations, statements as part of texts can be qualified under agreed conditions as now matching the situation (true) or as now not now matching the situation (false). However, a now-true can become a now-not-true again in the next moment and vice versa.
This dynamic fact refers to the fact that a punctual occurrence or non-occurrence of a statement is to be distinguished from a structural occurrence/ non-occurrence of a statement, which speaks about occurrence/ non-occurrence in context. This refers to relations which are only indirectly apparent in the context of a multitude of individual events, if one considers chains of events over many points in time. Finally, one must also consider that the correlates of meaning are primarily located within the human biological system. Meaning correlates are not automatically true as such, but only if there is an active correspondence between a remembered/thought/imagined meaning correlate and an active perceptual element, where an intersubjective fact must correspond to the perceptual element. Just because someone talks about a rabbit and the recipient understands what a rabbit is, this does not mean that there is also a real rabbit which the recipient can perceive.
TEXT-GENERATORS
When distinguishing between the two different types of actors – here biological systems of the type Homo sapiens and there technical systems of the type text-generators – a first fundamental asymmetry immediately strikes the eye: so-called text-generators are entities invented and built by humans; furthermore, it is humans who use them, and the essential material used by text-generators are furthermore texts, which are considered human cultural property, created and used by humans for a variety of discourse types, here restricted to scientific discourse.
In the case of text generators, let us first note that we are dealing with machines that have input and output, a minimal learning capability, and whose input and output can process text-like objects. Insofar as text generators can process text-like objects as input and process them again as output, an exchange of texts between humans and text generators can take place in principle.
At the current state of development (September 2023), text generators do not yet have an independent real-world perception within the scope of their input, and the entire text generator system does not yet have such processes as those that enable species-typical cognitions in humans. Furthermore, a text generator does not yet have a meaning function as it is given with humans.
From this fact it follows automatically that text generators cannot decide about selective or structural correctness/not correctness in the case of statements of a text. In general, they do not have their own assignment of meaning as with humans. Texts generated by text generators only have a meaning if a human as a recipient automatically assigns a meaning to a text due to his species-typical meaning relation, because this is the learned behavior of a human. In fact, the text generator itself has never assigned any meaning to the generated text. Salopp one could also formulate that a technical text generator works like a parasite: it collects texts that humans have generated, rearranges them combinatorially according to formal criteria for the output, and for the receiving human a meaning event is automatically triggered by the text in the human, which does not exist anywhere in the text generator. Whether this very restricted form of text generation is now in any sense detrimental or advantageous for the type of scientific discourse (with texts), that is to be examined in the further course.
SCIENTIFIC DISCOURSE
There is no clear definition for the term scientific discourse. This is not surprising, since an unambiguous definition presupposes that there is a fully specified conceptual framework within which terms such as discourse and scientific can be clearly delimited. However, in the case of a scientific enterprise with a global reach, broken down into countless individual disciplines, this does not seem to be the case at present (Sept 2023). For the further procedure, we will therefore fall back on core ideas of the discussion in philosophy of science since the 20th century [4]and we will introduce working hypotheses on the concept of empirical theory as well as sustainable empirical theory, so that a working hypothesis on the concept of scientific discourse will be possible, which has a minimal sharpness.
[4] A good place to start may be: F. Suppe, Editor. The Structure of Scientific Theories. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, 2 edition, 1979.
EMPIRICAL THEORY
The following assumptions are made for the notion of an empirical theory:
an empirical theory is basically a text, written in a language that all participants understand.
one part of the theory contains a description of an initial situation, the statements of which can be qualified by the theory users as now matching (true) or now not matching (false).
another part of the theory contains a text that lists all changes that, to the knowledge of the participants, occur in the context of the initial situation and can change parts of the initial situation.
changes in the initial situation are expressed by replacing certain statements of the initial situation with other statements. The resulting new text replaces the previous text.
through the possibility of generating new initial situations, there is the possibility of making predictions (forming expectations) by applying rules of change to an applicable initial situation several times (at least once) in succession. The texts that are generated in each case induce in the minds of the participants, on the basis of the available meaning functions, the idea of a situation that is demanded to become qualified as now matching with intersubjective reality, should it occur. In the case of occurrence, the situation must correspond to the conception in the mind via perception. Whether such a correspondence can be established, after how long time and to what extent, this is basically open in the presence of the prediction making (the formation of an expectation) (autonomy of the object!).
SCIENTIFIC DISCOURSE NEW
Even before the introduction of the notion of a sustainable empirical theory, the notion of an empirical theory just introduced allows for initial statements about what a scientific discourse could or should be. It is assumed here that the participants in a scientific discourse exchange their opinions about the world in the form of texts, all of which meet the requirements of an empirical theory.
WITH HUMANS
Insofar as the participants in the discourse are human beings, we know that they have basic species-typical abilities to generate subjective meanings by means of language, which can be decided as now true or now not true by reference to a real situation.
WITH TEXT GENERATORS
Insofar as the discourse participants would be text generators lacking these elementary skills (meaning, reality reference), they drop out as independent actors for a scientific discourse. To illustrate this, here is a self-assessment of chatGPT4, a current text generator:
ChatGPT
Yes, your summary of our previous dialogue is accurate based on the points you’ve listed:
I cannot read a book in the same way a human does, meaning I don’t interpret or comprehend in the same manner.
My knowledge is up to September 2021, which means that I might not be aware of events, advancements, or publications after that point.
My “learning” is different from human learning. I don’t learn from new experiences or information after my last update. Instead, I generate responses based on patterns in the data I was trained on.
I don’t cite individual sources in my responses. I provide information based on the patterns recognized during my training.
Responses I give can vary slightly even if the same question is posed multiple times.
I can’t directly attribute my statements to specific, individual sources.
The specifics about my training data and the processes that determine my responses are not transparently provided in each interaction.
You’ve captured the essence of our prior conversation well. If you have further questions or need clarifications on any of these points, please let me know. [5]
[5] This text is from a chat experiment conducted by the author with chatGPT4 on August 31, 2023. The citation can be found in: Gerd Doeben-Henisch, CONTINUE EXPERIMENT WITH CHATGPT4: Science, Empirical Science, Philosophy of Science, uffmm, Integrating Engineering and the Human Factor, eJournal uffmm.org ISSN 2567-6458, 8/31/2023 in [https://www.uffmm.org/2023/08/31/continue-experiment-with-chatgpt4-science-empirical-science-philosophy-of-science/ ] (accessed 9/27/2023).
The question then arises whether (current) text generators, despite their severely limited capabilities, could nevertheless contribute to scientific discourse, and what this contribution means for human participants. Since text generators fail for the hard scientific criteria (decidable reality reference, reproducible predictive behavior, separation of sources), one can only assume a possible contribution within human behavior: since humans can understand and empirically verify texts, they would in principle be able to rudimentarily classify a text from a text generator within their considerations.
For hard theory work, these texts would not be usable, but due to their literary-associative character across a very large body of texts, the texts of text generators could – in the positive case – at least introduce thoughts into the discourse through texts as stimulators via the detour of human understanding, which would stimulate the human user to examine these additional aspects to see if they might be important for the actual theory building after all. In this way, the text generators would not participate independently in the scientific discourse, but they would indirectly support the knowledge process of the human actors as aids to them.[6]
[6] A detailed illustration of this associative role of a text generator can also be found in (Doeben-Henisch, 2023) on the example of the term philosophy of science and on the question of the role of philosophy of science.
CHALLENGE DECISION
The application of an empirical theory can – in the positive case — enable an expanded picture of everyday experience, in that, related to an initial situation, possible continuations (possible futures) are brought before one’s eyes. For people who have to shape their own individual processes in their respective everyday life, however, it is usually not enough to know only what one can do.Rather, everyday life requires deciding in each case which continuation to choose, given the many possible continuations. In order to be able to assert themselves in everyday life with as little effort as possible and with – at least imagined – as little risk as possible, people have adopted well-rehearsed behavior patterns for as many everyday situations as possible, which they follow spontaneously without questioning them anew each time. These well-rehearsed behavior patterns include decisions that have been made. Nevertheless, there are always situations in which the ingrained automatisms have to be interrupted in order to consciously clarify the question for which of several possibilities one wants to decide.
The example of an individual decision-maker can also be directly applied to the behavior of larger groups. Normally, even more individual factors play a role here, all of which have to be integrated in order to reach a decision. However, the characteristic feature of a decision situation remains the same: whatever knowledge one may have at the time of decision, when alternatives are available, one has to decide for one of many alternatives without any further, additional knowledge at this point. Empirical science cannot help here [7]: it is an indisputable basic ability of humans to be able to decide.
So far, however, it remains rather hidden in the darkness of not knowing oneself, which ultimately leads to deciding for one and not for the other. Whether and to what extent the various cultural patterns of decision-making aids in the form of religious, moral, ethical or similar formats actually form or have formed a helpful role for projecting a successful future appears to be more unclear than ever.[8]
[7] No matter how much detail she can contribute about the nature of decision-making processes.
[8] This topic is taken up again in the following in a different context and embedded there in a different solution context.
SUSTAINABLE EMPIRICAL THEORY
Through the newly flared up discussion about sustainability in the context of the United Nations, the question of prioritizing action relevant to survival has received a specific global impulse. The multitude of aspects that arise in this discourse context [9] are difficult, if not impossible, to classify into an overarching, consistent conceptual framework.
[9] For an example see the 17 development goals: [https://unric.org/de/17ziele/] (Accessed: September 27, 2023)
A rough classification of development goals into resource-oriented and actor-oriented can help to make an underlying asymmetry visible: a resource problem only exists if there are biological systems on this planet that require a certain configuration of resources (an ecosystem) for their physical existence. Since the physical resources that can be found on planet Earth are quantitatively limited, it is possible, in principle, to determine through thought and science under what conditions the available physical resources — given a prevailing behavior — are insufficient. Added to this is the factor that biological systems, by their very existence, also actively alter the resources that can be found.
So, if there should be a resource problem, it is exclusively because the behavior of the biological systems has led to such a biologically caused shortage. Resources as such are neither too much, nor too little, nor good, nor bad. If one accepts that the behavior of biological systems in the case of the species Homo sapiens can be controlled by internal states, then the resource problem is primarily a cognitive and emotional problem: Do we know enough? Do we want the right thing? And these questions point to motivations beyond what is currently knowable. Is there a dark spot in the human self-image here?
On the one hand, this questioning refers to the driving forces for a current decision beyond the possibilities of the empirical sciences (trans-empirical, meta-physical, …), but on the other hand, this questioning also refers to the center/ core of human competence. This motivates to extend the notion of empirical theory to the notion of a sustainable empirical theory. This does not automatically solve the question of the inner mechanism of a value decision, but it systematically classifies the problem. The problem thus has an official place. The following formulation is suggested as a characterization for the concept of a sustainable empirical theory:
a sustainable empirical theory contains an empirical theory as its core.
besides the parts of initial situation, rules of change and application of rules of change, a sustainable theory also contains a text with a list of such situations, which are considered desirable for a possible future (goals, visions, …).
under the condition of goals, it is possible to minimally compare each current situation with the available goals and thereby indicate the degree of goal achievement.
Stating desired goals says nothing about how realistic or promising it is to pursue those goals. It only expresses that the authors of this theory know these goals and consider them optimal at the time of theory creation. [10] The irrationality of chosen goals is in this way officially included in the domain of thought of the theory creators and in this way facilitates the extension of the rational to the irrational without already having a real solution. Nobody can exclude that the phenomenon of bringing forth something new, respectively of preferring a certain point of view in comparison to others, can be understood further and better in the future.
[10] Something can only be classified as optimal if it can be placed within an overarching framework, which allows for positioning on a scale. This refers to a minimal cognitive model as an expression of rationality. However, the decision itself takes place outside of such a rational model; in this sense, the decision as an independent process is pre-rational.
EXTENDED SCIENTIFIC DISCOURSE
If one accepts the concept of a sustainable empirical theory, then one can extend the concept of a scientific discourse in such a way that not only texts that represent empirical theories can be introduced, but also those texts that represent sustainable empirical theories with their own goals. Here too, one can ask whether the current text generators (September 2023) can make a constructive contribution. Insofar as a sustainable empirical theory contains an empirical theory as a hard core, the preceding observations on the limitations of text generators apply. In the creative part of the development of an empirical theory, they can contribute text fragments through their associative-combinatorial character based on a very large number of documents, which may inspire the active human theory authors to expand their view. But what about that part that manifests itself in the selection of possible goals? At this point, one must realize that it is not about any formulations, but about those that represent possible solution formulations within a systematic framework; this implies knowledge of relevant and verifiable meaning structures that could be taken into account in the context of symbolic patterns. Text generators fundamentally do not have these abilities. But it is – again – not to be excluded that their associative-combinatorial character based on a very large number of documents can still provide one or the other suggestion.
In retrospect of humanity’s history of knowledge, research, and technology, it is suggested that the great advances were each triggered by something really new, that is, by something that had never existed before in this form. The praise for Big Data, as often heard today, represents – colloquially speaking — exactly the opposite: The burial of the new by cementing the old.[11]
[11] A prominent example of the naive fixation on the old as a standard for what is right can be seen, for example, in the book by Seth Stephens-Davidowitz, Don’t Trust Your Gut. Using Data Instead of Instinct To Make Better Choices, London – Oxford New York et al., 2022.
EXISTENTIALLY NEW THROUGH TIME
The concept of an empirical theory inherently contains the element of change, and even in the extended concept of a sustainable empirical theory, in addition to the fundamental concept of change, there is the aspect of a possible goal. A possible goal itself is not a change, but presupposes the reality of changes! The concept of change does not result from any objects but is the result of a brain performance, through which a current present is transformed into a partially memorable state (memory contents) by forming time slices in the context of perception processes – largely unconsciously. These produced memory contents have different abstract structures, are networked differently with each other, and are assessed in different ways. In addition, the brain automatically compares current perceptions with such stored contents and immediately reports when a current perception has changed compared to the last perception contents. In this way, the phenomenon of change is a fundamental cognitive achievement of the brain, which thus makes the character of a feeling of time available in the form of a fundamental process structure. The weight of this property in the context of evolution is hardly to be overestimated, as time as such is in no way perceptible.
[12] The modern invention of machines that can generate periodic signals (oscillators, clocks) has been successfully integrated into people’s everyday lives. However, the artificially (technically) producible time has nothing to do with the fundamental change found in reality. Technical time is a tool that we humans have invented to somehow structure the otherwise amorphous mass of a phenomenon stream. Since structure itself shows in the amorphous mass, which manifest obviously for all, repeating change cycles (e.g., sunrise and sunset, moonrise and moonset, seasons, …), a correlation of technical time models and natural time phenomena was offered. From the correlations resulting here, however, one should not conclude that the amorphous mass of the world phenomenon stream actually behaves according to our technical time model. Einstein’s theory of relativity at least makes us aware that there can be various — or only one? — asymmetries between technical time and world phenomenon stream.
Assuming this fundamental sense of time in humans, one can in principle recognize whether a current phenomenon, compared to all preceding phenomena, is somehow similar or markedly different, and in this sense indicates something qualitatively new.[13]
[13] Ultimately, an individual human only has its individual memory contents available for comparison, while a collective of people can in principle consult the set of all records. However, as is known, only a minimal fraction of the experiential reality is symbolically transformed.
By presupposing the concept of directed time for the designation of qualitatively new things, such a new event is assigned an information value in the Shannonian sense, as well as the phenomenon itself in terms of linguistic meaning, and possibly also in the cognitive area: relative to a spanned knowledge space, the occurrence of a qualitatively new event can significantly strengthen a theoretical assumption. In the latter case, the cognitive relevance may possibly mutate to a sustainable relevance if the assumption marks a real action option that could be important for further progress. In the latter case, this would provoke the necessity of a decision: should we adopt this action option or not? Humans can accomplish the finding of qualitatively new things. They are designed for it by evolution. But what about text generators?
Text generators so far do not have a sense of time comparable to that of humans. Their starting point would be texts that are different, in such a way that there is at least one text that is the most recent on the timeline and describes real events in the real world of phenomena. Since a text generator (as of September 2023) does not yet have the ability to classify texts regarding their applicability/non-applicability in the real world, its use would normally end here. Assuming that there are people who manually perform this classification for a text generator [14] (which would greatly limit the number of possible texts), then a text generator could search the surface of these texts for similar patterns and, relative to them, for those that cannot be compared. Assuming that the text generator would find a set of non-comparable patterns in acceptable time despite a massive combinatorial explosion, the problem of semantic qualification would arise again: which of these patterns can be classified as an indication of something qualitatively new? Again, humans would have to become active.
[14] Such support of machines by humans in the field of so-called intelligent algorithms has often been applied (and is still being applied today, see: [https://www.mturk.com/] (Accessed: September 27, 2023)), and is known to be very prone to errors.
As before, the verdict is mixed: left to itself, a text generator will not be able to solve this task, but in cooperation with humans, it may possibly provide important auxiliary services, which could ultimately be of existential importance to humans in search of something qualitatively new despite all limitations.
THE IMMANENT PREJUDICE OF THE SCIENCES
A prejudice is known to be the assessment of a situation as an instance of a certain pattern, which the judge assumes applies, even though there are numerous indications that the assumed applicability is empirically false. Due to the permanent requirement of everyday life that we have to make decisions, humans, through their evolutionary development, have the fundamental ability to make many of their everyday decisions largely automatically. This offers many advantages, but can also lead to conflicts.
Daniel Kahneman introduced in this context in his book [15] the two terms System 1 and System 2 for a human actor. These terms describe in his concept of a human actor two behavioral complexes that can be distinguished based on some properties.[16] System 1 is set by the overall system of human actor and is characterized by the fact that the actor can respond largely automatically to requirements by everyday life. The human actor has automatic answers to certain stimuli from his environment, without having to think much about it. In case of conflicts within System 1 or from the perspective of System 2, which exercises some control over the appropriateness of System 1 reactions in a certain situation in conscious mode, System 2 becomes active. This does not have automatic answers ready, but has to laboriously work out an answer to a given situation step by step. However, there is also the phenomenon that complex processes, which must be carried out frequently, can be automated to a certain extent (bicycling, swimming, playing a musical instrument, learning language, doing mental arithmetic, …). All these processes are based on preceding decisions that encompass different forms of preferences. As long as these automated processes are appropriate in the light of a certain rational model, everything seems to be OK. But if the corresponding model is distorted in any sense, then it would be said that these models carry a prejudice.
[15] Daniel Kahnemann, Thinking Fast and Slow, Pinguin Boooks Random House, UK, 2012 (zuerst 2011)
[16] See the following Chapter 1 in Part 1 of (Kahnemann, 2012, pages 19-30).
In addition to the countless examples that Kahneman himself cites in his book to show the susceptibility of System 1 to such prejudices, it should be pointed out here that the model of Kahneman himself (and many similar models) can carry a prejudice that is of a considerably more fundamental nature. The division of the behavioral space of a human actor into a System 1 and 2, as Kahneman does, obviously has great potential to classify many everyday events. But what about all the everyday phenomena that fit neither the scheme of System 1 nor the scheme of System 2?
In the case of making a decision, System 1 comments that people – if available – automatically call up and execute an available answer. Only in the case of conflict under the control of System 2 can there be lengthy operations that lead to other, new answers.
In the case of decisions, however, it is not just about reacting at all, but there is also the problem of choosing between known possibilities or even finding something new because the known old is unsatisfactory.
Established scientific disciplines have their specific perspectives and methods that define areas of everyday life as a subject area. Phenomena that do not fit into this predefined space do not occur for the relevant discipline – methodically conditioned. In the area of decision-making and thus the typical human structures, there are not a few areas that have so far not found official entry into a scientific discipline. At a certain point in time, there are ultimately many, large phenomenon areas that really exist, but methodically are not present in the view of individual sciences. For a scientific investigation of the real world, this means that the sciences, due to their immanent exclusions, are burdened with a massive reservation against the empirical world. For the task of selecting suitable sustainable goals within the framework of sustainable science, this structurally conditioned fact can be fatal. Loosely formulated: under the banner of actual science, a central principle of science – the openness to all phenomena – is simply excluded, so as not to have to change the existing structure.
For this question of a meta-reflection on science itself, text generators are again only reduced to possible abstract text delivery services under the direction of humans.
SUPERVISION BY PHILOSOPHY
The just-described fatal dilemma of all modern sciences is to be taken seriously, as without an efficient science, sustainable reflection on the present and future cannot be realized in the long term. If one agrees that the fatal bias of science is caused by the fact that each discipline works intensively within its discipline boundaries, but does not systematically organize communication and reflection beyond its own boundaries with a view to other disciplines as meta-reflection, the question must be answered whether and how this deficit can be overcome.
There is only one known answer to this question: one must search for that conceptual framework within which these guiding concepts can meaningfully interact both in their own right and in their interaction with other guiding concepts, starting from those guiding concepts that are constitutive for the individual disciplines.
This is genuinely the task of philosophy, concretized by the example of the philosophy of science. However, this would mean that each individual science would have to use a sufficiently large part of its capacities to make the idea of the one science in maximum diversity available in a real process.
For the hard conceptual work hinted at here, text generators will hardly be able to play a central role.
COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE
Since so far there is no concept of intelligence in any individual science that goes beyond a single discipline, it makes little sense at first glance to apply the term intelligence to collectives. However, looking at the cultural achievements of humanity as a whole, and here not least with a view to the used language, it is undeniable that a description of the performance of an individual person, its individual performance, is incomplete without reference to the whole.
So, if one tries to assign an overarching meaning to the letter combination intelligence, one will not be able to avoid deciphering this phenomenon of the human collective in the form of complex everyday processes in a no less complex dynamic world, at least to the extent that one can identify a somewhat corresponding empirical something for the letter combination intelligence, with which one could constitute a comprehensible meaning.
Of course, this term should be scalable for all biological systems, and one would have to have a comprehensible procedure that allows the various technical systems to be related to this collective intelligence term in such a way that direct performance comparisons between biological and technical systems would be possible.[17]
[17] The often quoted and popular Turing Test (See: Alan M. Turing: Computing Machinery and Intelligence. In: Mind. Volume LIX, No. 236, 1950, 433–460, [doi:10.1093/mind/LIX.236.433] (Accessed: Sept 29, 2023) in no way meets the methodological requirements that one would have to adhere to if one actually wanted to come to a qualified performance comparison between humans and machines. Nevertheless, the basic idea of Turing in his meta-logical text from 1936, published in 1937 (see: A. M. Turing: On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem. In: Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society. s2-42. Volume, No. 1, 1937, 230–265 [doi:10.1112/plms/s2-42.1.230] (Accessed: Sept 29, 2023) seems to be a promising starting point, since he, in trying to present an alternative formulation to Kurt Gödel’s (1931) proof on the undecidability of arithmetic, leads a meta-logical proof, and in this context Turing introduces the concept of a machine that was later called Universal Turing Machine.
Already in this proof approach, it can be seen how Turing transforms the phenomenon of a human bookkeeper at a meta-level into a theoretical concept, by means of which he can then meta-logically examine the behavior of this bookkeeper in a specific behavioral space. His meta-logical proof not only confirmed Gödel’s meta-logical proof, but also indirectly indicates how ultimately any phenomenal complexes can be formalized on a meta-level in such a way that one can then argue formally demanding with it.
CONCLUSION STRUCTURALLY
The idea of philosophical supervision of the individual sciences with the goal of a concrete integration of all disciplines into an overall conceptual structure seems to be fundamentally possible from a philosophy of science perspective based on the previous considerations. From today’s point of view, specific phenomena claimed by individual disciplines should no longer be a fundamental obstacle for a modern theory concept. This would clarify the basics of the concept of Collective Intelligence and it would surely be possible to more clearly identify interactions between human collective intelligence and interactive machines. Subsequently, the probability would increase that the supporting machines could be further optimized, so that they could also help in more demanding tasks.
CONCLUSION SUBJECTIVELY
Attempting to characterize the interactive role of text generators in a human-driven scientific discourse, assuming a certain scientific model, appears to be somewhat clear from a transdisciplinary (and thus structural) perspective. However, such scientific discourse represents only a sub-space of the general human discourse space. In the latter, the reception of texts from the perspective of humans inevitably also has a subjective view [18]: People are used to suspecting a human author behind a text. With the appearance of technical aids, texts have increasingly become products, which increasingly gaining formulations that are not written down by a human author alone, but by the technical aids themselves, mediated by a human author. With the appearance of text generators, the proportion of technically generated formulations increases extremely, up to the case that ultimately the entire text is the direct output of a technical aid. It becomes difficult to impossible to recognize to what extent a controlling human share can still be spoken of here. The human author thus disappears behind a text; the sign reality which does not prevent an existential projection of the inner world of the human reader into a potential human author, but threatens to lose itself or actually loses itself in the real absence of a human author in the face of a chimeric human counterpart. What happens in a world where people no longer have human counterparts?
[18] There is an excellent analysis on this topic by Hannes Bajohr titled “Artifizielle und postartifizielle Texte. Über Literatur und Künstliche Intelligenz” (Artificial and Post-Artificial Texts: On Literature and Artificial Intelligence). It was the Walter-Höllerer-Lecture 2022, delivered on December 8, 2022, at the Technical University of Berlin. The lecture can be accessed here [ https://hannesbajohr.de/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Hoellerer-Vorlesung-2022.pdf ] (Accessed: September 29, 2023). The reference to this lecture was provided to me by Jennifer Becker.
Attention: This text has been translated from a German source by using the software deepL for nearly 97 – 99% of the text! The diagrams of the German version have been left out.
CONTEXT
This text represents the outline of a talk given at the conference “AI – Text and Validity. How do AI text generators change scientific discourse?” (August 25/26, 2023, TU Darmstadt). [1] A publication of all lectures is planned by the publisher Walter de Gruyter by the end of 2023/beginning of 2024. This publication will be announced here then.
Start of the Lecture
Dear Auditorium,
This conference entitled “AI – Text and Validity. How do AI text generators change scientific discourses?” is centrally devoted to scientific discourses and the possible influence of AI text generators on these. However, the hot core ultimately remains the phenomenon of text itself, its validity.
In this conference many different views are presented that are possible on this topic.
TRANSDISCIPLINARY
My contribution to the topic tries to define the role of the so-called AI text generators by embedding the properties of ‘AI text generators’ in a ‘structural conceptual framework’ within a ‘transdisciplinary view’. This helps the specifics of scientific discourses to be highlighted. This can then result further in better ‘criteria for an extended assessment’ of AI text generators in their role for scientific discourses.
An additional aspect is the question of the structure of ‘collective intelligence’ using humans as an example, and how this can possibly unite with an ‘artificial intelligence’ in the context of scientific discourses.
‘Transdisciplinary’ in this context means to span a ‘meta-level’ from which it should be possible to describe today’s ‘diversity of text productions’ in a way that is expressive enough to distinguish ‘AI-based’ text production from ‘human’ text production.
HUMAN TEXT GENERATION
The formulation ‘scientific discourse’ is a special case of the more general concept ‘human text generation’.
This change of perspective is meta-theoretically necessary, since at first sight it is not the ‘text as such’ that decides about ‘validity and non-validity’, but the ‘actors’ who ‘produce and understand texts’. And with the occurrence of ‘different kinds of actors’ – here ‘humans’, there ‘machines’ – one cannot avoid addressing exactly those differences – if there are any – that play a weighty role in the ‘validity of texts’.
TEXT CAPABLE MACHINES
With the distinction in two different kinds of actors – here ‘humans’, there ‘machines’ – a first ‘fundamental asymmetry’ immediately strikes the eye: so-called ‘AI text generators’ are entities that have been ‘invented’ and ‘built’ by humans, it are furthermore humans who ‘use’ them, and the essential material used by so-called AI generators are again ‘texts’ that are considered a ‘human cultural property’.
In the case of so-called ‘AI-text-generators’, we shall first state only this much, that we are dealing with ‘machines’, which have ‘input’ and ‘output’, plus a minimal ‘learning ability’, and whose input and output can process ‘text-like objects’.
BIOLOGICAL — NON-BIOLOGICAL
On the meta-level, then, we are assumed to have, on the one hand, such actors which are minimally ‘text-capable machines’ – completely human products – and, on the other hand, actors we call ‘humans’. Humans, as a ‘homo-sapiens population’, belong to the set of ‘biological systems’, while ‘text-capable machines’ belong to the set of ‘non-biological systems’.
BLANK INTELLIGENCE TERM
The transformation of the term ‘AI text generator’ into the term ‘text capable machine’ undertaken here is intended to additionally illustrate that the widespread use of the term ‘AI’ for ‘artificial intelligence’ is rather misleading. So far, there exists today no general concept of ‘intelligence’ in any scientific discipline that can be applied and accepted beyond individual disciplines. There is no real justification for the almost inflationary use of the term AI today other than that the term has been so drained of meaning that it can be used anytime, anywhere, without saying anything wrong. Something that has no meaning can be neither true’ nor ‘false’.
PREREQUISITES FOR TEXT GENERATION
If now the homo-sapiens population is identified as the original actor for ‘text generation’ and ‘text comprehension’, it shall now first be examined which are ‘those special characteristics’ that enable a homo-sapiens population to generate and comprehend texts and to ‘use them successfully in the everyday life process’.
VALIDITY
A connecting point for the investigation of the special characteristics of a homo-sapiens text generation and a text understanding is the term ‘validity’, which occurs in the conference topic.
In the primary arena of biological life, in everyday processes, in everyday life, the ‘validity’ of a text has to do with ‘being correct’, being ‘appicable’. If a text is not planned from the beginning with a ‘fictional character’, but with a ‘reference to everyday events’, which everyone can ‘check’ in the context of his ‘perception of the world’, then ‘validity in everyday life’ has to do with the fact that the ‘correctness of a text’ can be checked. If the ‘statement of a text’ is ‘applicable’ in everyday life, if it is ‘correct’, then one also says that this statement is ‘valid’, one grants it ‘validity’, one also calls it ‘true’. Against this background, one might be inclined to continue and say: ‘If’ the statement of a text ‘does not apply’, then it has ‘no validity’; simplified to the formulation that the statement is ‘not true’ or simply ‘false’.
In ‘real everyday life’, however, the world is rarely ‘black’ and ‘white’: it is not uncommon that we are confronted with texts to which we are inclined to ascribe ‘a possible validity’ because of their ‘learned meaning’, although it may not be at all clear whether there is – or will be – a situation in everyday life in which the statement of the text actually applies. In such a case, the validity would then be ‘indeterminate’; the statement would be ‘neither true nor false’.
ASYMMETRY: APPLICABLE- NOT APPLICABLE
One can recognize a certain asymmetry here: The ‘applicability’ of a statement, its actual validity, is comparatively clear. The ‘not being applicable’, i.e. a ‘merely possible’ validity, on the other hand, is difficult to decide.
With this phenomenon of the ‘current non-decidability’ of a statement we touch both the problem of the ‘meaning’ of a statement — how far is at all clear what is meant? — as well as the problem of the ‘unfinishedness of our everyday life’, better known as ‘future’: whether a ‘current present’ continues as such, whether exactly like this, or whether completely different, depends on how we understand and estimate ‘future’ in general; what some take for granted as a possible future, can be simply ‘nonsense’ for others.
MEANING
This tension between ‘currently decidable’ and ‘currently not yet decidable’ additionally clarifies an ‘autonomous’ aspect of the phenomenon of meaning: if a certain knowledge has been formed in the brain and has been made usable as ‘meaning’ for a ‘language system’, then this ‘associated’ meaning gains its own ‘reality’ for the scope of knowledge: it is not the ‘reality beyond the brain’, but the ‘reality of one’s own thinking’, whereby this reality of thinking ‘seen from outside’ has something like ‘being virtual’.
If one wants to talk about this ‘special reality of meaning’ in the context of the ‘whole system’, then one has to resort to far-reaching assumptions in order to be able to install a ‘conceptual framework’ on the meta-level which is able to sufficiently describe the structure and function of meaning. For this, the following components are minimally assumed (‘knowledge’, ‘language’ as well as ‘meaning relation’):
KNOWLEDGE: There is the totality of ‘knowledge’ that ‘builds up’ in the homo-sapiens actor in the course of time in the brain: both due to continuous interactions of the ‘brain’ with the ‘environment of the body’, as well as due to interactions ‘with the body itself’, as well as due to interactions ‘of the brain with itself’.
LANGUAGE: To be distinguished from knowledge is the dynamic system of ‘potential means of expression’, here simplistically called ‘language’, which can unfold over time in interaction with ‘knowledge’.
MEANING RELATIONSHIP: Finally, there is the dynamic ‘meaning relation’, an interaction mechanism that can link any knowledge elements to any language means of expression at any time.
Each of these mentioned components ‘knowledge’, ‘language’ as well as ‘meaning relation’ is extremely complex; no less complex is their interaction.
FUTURE AND EMOTIONS
In addition to the phenomenon of meaning, it also became apparent in the phenomenon of being applicable that the decision of being applicable also depends on an ‘available everyday situation’ in which a current correspondence can be ‘concretely shown’ or not.
If, in addition to a ‘conceivable meaning’ in the mind, we do not currently have any everyday situation that sufficiently corresponds to this meaning in the mind, then there are always two possibilities: We can give the ‘status of a possible future’ to this imagined construct despite the lack of reality reference, or not.
If we would decide to assign the status of a possible future to a ‘meaning in the head’, then there arise usually two requirements: (i) Can it be made sufficiently plausible in the light of the available knowledge that the ‘imagined possible situation’ can be ‘transformed into a new real situation’ in the ‘foreseeable future’ starting from the current real situation? And (ii) Are there ‘sustainable reasons’ why one should ‘want and affirm’ this possible future?
The first requirement calls for a powerful ‘science’ that sheds light on whether it can work at all. The second demand goes beyond this and brings the seemingly ‘irrational’ aspect of ’emotionality’ into play under the garb of ‘sustainability’: it is not simply about ‘knowledge as such’, it is also not only about a ‘so-called sustainable knowledge’ that is supposed to contribute to supporting the survival of life on planet Earth — and beyond –, it is rather also about ‘finding something good, affirming something, and then also wanting to decide it’. These last aspects are so far rather located beyond ‘rationality’; they are assigned to the diffuse area of ’emotions’; which is strange, since any form of ‘usual rationality’ is exactly based on these ’emotions’.[2]
SCIENTIFIC DISCOURSE AND EVERYDAY SITUATIONS
In the context of ‘rationality’ and ’emotionality’ just indicated, it is not uninteresting that in the conference topic ‘scientific discourse’ is thematized as a point of reference to clarify the status of text-capable machines.
The question is to what extent a ‘scientific discourse’ can serve as a reference point for a successful text at all?
For this purpose it can help to be aware of the fact that life on this planet earth takes place at every moment in an inconceivably large amount of ‘everyday situations’, which all take place simultaneously. Each ‘everyday situation’ represents a ‘present’ for the actors. And in the heads of the actors there is an individually different knowledge about how a present ‘can change’ or will change in a possible future.
This ‘knowledge in the heads’ of the actors involved can generally be ‘transformed into texts’ which in different ways ‘linguistically represent’ some of the aspects of everyday life.
The crucial point is that it is not enough for everyone to produce a text ‘for himself’ alone, quite ‘individually’, but that everyone must produce a ‘common text’ together ‘with everyone else’ who is also affected by the everyday situation. A ‘collective’ performance is required.
Nor is it a question of ‘any’ text, but one that is such that it allows for the ‘generation of possible continuations in the future’, that is, what is traditionally expected of a ‘scientific text’.
From the extensive discussion — since the times of Aristotle — of what ‘scientific’ should mean, what a ‘theory’ is, what an ’empirical theory’ should be, I sketch what I call here the ‘minimal concept of an empirical theory’.
The starting point is a ‘group of people’ (the ‘authors’) who want to create a ‘common text’.
This text is supposed to have the property that it allows ‘justifiable predictions’ for possible ‘future situations’, to which then ‘sometime’ in the future a ‘validity can be assigned’.
The authors are able to agree on a ‘starting situation’ which they transform by means of a ‘common language’ into a ‘source text’ [A].
It is agreed that this initial text may contain only ‘such linguistic expressions’ which can be shown to be ‘true’ ‘in the initial situation’.
In another text, the authors compile a set of ‘rules of change’ [V] that put into words ‘forms of change’ for a given situation.
Also in this case it is considered as agreed that only ‘such rules of change’ may be written down, of which all authors know that they have proved to be ‘true’ in ‘preceding everyday situations’.
The text with the rules of change V is on a ‘meta-level’ compared to the text A about the initial situation, which is on an ‘object-level’ relative to the text V.
The ‘interaction’ between the text V with the change rules and the text A with the initial situation is described in a separate ‘application text’ [F]: Here it is described when and how one may apply a change rule (in V) to a source text A and how this changes the ‘source text A’ to a ‘subsequent text A*’.
The application text F is thus on a next higher meta-level to the two texts A and V and can cause the application text to change the source text A.
The moment a new subsequent text A* exists, the subsequent text A* becomes the new initial text A.
If the new initial text A is such that a change rule from V can be applied again, then the generation of a new subsequent text A* is repeated.
This ‘repeatability’ of the application can lead to the generation of many subsequent texts <A*1, …, A*n>.
A series of many subsequent texts <A*1, …, A*n> is usually called a ‘simulation’.
Depending on the nature of the source text A and the nature of the change rules in V, it may be that possible simulations ‘can go quite differently’. The set of possible scientific simulations thus represents ‘future’ not as a single, definite course, but as an ‘arbitrarily large set of possible courses’.
The factors on which different courses depend are manifold. One factor are the authors themselves. Every author is, after all, with his corporeality completely himself part of that very empirical world which is to be described in a scientific theory. And, as is well known, any human actor can change his mind at any moment. He can literally in the next moment do exactly the opposite of what he thought before. And thus the world is already no longer the same as previously assumed in the scientific description.
Even this simple example shows that the emotionality of ‘finding good, wanting, and deciding’ lies ahead of the rationality of scientific theories. This continues in the so-called ‘sustainability discussion’.
SUSTAINABLE EMPIRICAL THEORY
With the ‘minimal concept of an empirical theory (ET)’ just introduced, a ‘minimal concept of a sustainable empirical theory (NET)’ can also be introduced directly.
While an empirical theory can span an arbitrarily large space of grounded simulations that make visible the space of many possible futures, everyday actors are left with the question of what they want to have as ‘their future’ out of all this? In the present we experience the situation that mankind gives the impression that it agrees to destroy the life beyond the human population more and more sustainably with the expected effect of ‘self-destruction’.
However, this self-destruction effect, which can be predicted in outline, is only one variant in the space of possible futures. Empirical science can indicate it in outline. To distinguish this variant before others, to accept it as ‘good’, to ‘want’ it, to ‘decide’ for this variant, lies in that so far hardly explored area of emotionality as root of all rationality.[2]
If everyday actors have decided in favor of a certain rationally lightened variant of possible future, then they can evaluate at any time with a suitable ‘evaluation procedure (EVAL)’ how much ‘percent (%) of the properties of the target state Z’ have been achieved so far, provided that the favored target state is transformed into a suitable text Z.
In other words, the moment we have transformed everyday scenarios into a rationally tangible state via suitable texts, things take on a certain clarity and thereby become — in a sense — simple. That we make such transformations and on which aspects of a real or possible state we then focus is, however, antecedent to text-based rationality as an emotional dimension.[2]
MAN-MACHINE
After these preliminary considerations, the final question is whether and how the main question of this conference, “How do AI text generators change scientific discourse?” can be answered in any way?
My previous remarks have attempted to show what it means for humans to collectively generate texts that meet the criteria for scientific discourse that also meets the requirements for empirical or even sustained empirical theories.
In doing so, it becomes apparent that both in the generation of a collective scientific text and in its application in everyday life, a close interrelation with both the shared experiential world and the dynamic knowledge and meaning components in each actor play a role.
The aspect of ‘validity’ is part of a dynamic world reference whose assessment as ‘true’ is constantly in flux; while one actor may tend to say “Yes, can be true”, another actor may just tend to the opposite. While some may tend to favor possible future option X, others may prefer future option Y. Rational arguments are absent; emotions speak. While one group has just decided to ‘believe’ and ‘implement’ plan Z, the others turn away, reject plan Z, and do something completely different.
This unsteady, uncertain character of future-interpretation and future-action accompanies the Homo Sapiens population from the very beginning. The not understood emotional complex constantly accompanies everyday life like a shadow.
Where and how can ‘text-enabled machines’ make a constructive contribution in this situation?
Assuming that there is a source text A, a change text V and an instruction F, today’s algorithms could calculate all possible simulations faster than humans could.
Assuming that there is also a target text Z, today’s algorithms could also compute an evaluation of the relationship between a current situation as A and the target text Z.
In other words: if an empirical or a sustainable-empirical theory would be formulated with its necessary texts, then a present algorithm could automatically compute all possible simulations and the degree of target fulfillment faster than any human alone.
But what about the (i) elaboration of a theory or (ii) the pre-rational decision for a certain empirical or even sustainable-empirical theory ?
A clear answer to both questions seems hardly possible to me at the present time, since we humans still understand too little how we ourselves collectively form, select, check, compare and also reject theories in everyday life.
My working hypothesis on the subject is: that we will very well need machines capable of learning in order to be able to fulfill the task of developing useful sustainable empirical theories for our common everyday life in the future. But when this will happen in reality and to what extent seems largely unclear to me at this point in time.[2]
COMMENTS
[1] https://zevedi.de/en/topics/ki-text-2/
[2] Talking about ’emotions’ in the sense of ‘factors in us’ that move us to go from the state ‘before the text’ to the state ‘written text’, that hints at very many aspects. In a small exploratory text “State Change from Non-Writing to Writing. Working with chatGPT4 in parallel” ( https://www.uffmm.org/2023/08/28/state-change-from-non-writing-to-writing-working-with-chatgpt4-in-parallel/ ) the author has tried to address some of these aspects. While writing it becomes clear that very many ‘individually subjective’ aspects play a role here, which of course do not appear ‘isolated’, but always flash up a reference to concrete contexts, which are linked to the topic. Nevertheless, it is not the ‘objective context’ that forms the core statement, but the ‘individually subjective’ component that appears in the process of ‘putting into words’. This individual subjective component is tentatively used here as a criterion for ‘authentic texts’ in comparison to ‘automated texts’ like those that can be generated by all kinds of bots. In order to make this difference more tangible, the author decided to create an ‘automated text’ with the same topic at the same time as the quoted authentic text. For this purpose he used chatGBT4 from openAI. This is the beginning of a philosophical-literary experiment, perhaps to make the possible difference more visible in this way. For purely theoretical reasons, it is clear that a text generated by chatGBT4 can never generate ‘authentic texts’ in origin, unless it uses as a template an authentic text that it can modify. But then this is a clear ‘fake document’. To prevent such an abuse, the author writes the authentic text first and then asks chatGBT4 to write something about the given topic without chatGBT4 knowing the authentic text, because it has not yet found its way into the database of chatGBT4 via the Internet.
Since the release of the chatbot ‘chatGPT’ to the larger public, a kind of ‘earthquake’ has been going through the media, worldwide, in many areas, from individuals to institutions, companies, government agencies …. everyone is looking for the ‘chatGPT experience’. These reactions are amazing, and frightening at the same time.
Remark: The text of this post represents a later ‘stage’ of my thinking about the usefulness of the chatGPT algorithm, which started with my first reflections in the text entitled “chatGBT about Rationality: Emotions, Mystik, Unconscious, Conscious, …” from 15./16.January 2023. The main text to this version is an English translation from an originally German text partially generated with the www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version).
FORM
The following lines form only a short note, since it is hardly worthwhile to discuss a ‘surface phenomenon’ so intensively, when the ‘deep structures’ should be explained. Somehow the ‘structures behind chatGPT’ seem to interest hardly anybody (I do not mean technical details of the used algorithms).
chatGPT as an object
The chatbot named ‘chatGPT’ is a piece of software, an algorithm that (i) was invented and programmed by humans. When (ii) people ask it questions, then (iii) it searches the database of documents known to it, which in turn have been created by humans, (iv) for text patterns that have a relation to the question according to certain formal criteria (partly given by the programmers). These ‘text finds’ are (v) also ‘arranged’ according to certain formal criteria (partly given by the programmers) into a new text, which (vi) should come close to those text patterns, which a human reader is ‘used’ to accept as ‘meaningful’.
Text surface – text meaning – truthfulness
A normal human being can distinguish – at least ‘intuitively’ – between the (i) ‘strings’ used as ‘expressions of a language’ and those (ii) ‘knowledge elements’ (in the mind of the hearer-speaker) which are as such ‘independent’ of the language elements, but which (iii) can be ‘freely associated’ by speakers-hearers of a language, so that the correlated ‘knowledge elements’ become what is usually called the ‘meaning’ of the language elements. [1] Of these knowledge elements (iv), every language participant already ‘knows’ ‘pre-linguistically’, as a learning child [2], that some of these knowledge elements are ‘correlatable’ with circumstances of the everyday world under certain circumstances. And the normal language user also ‘intuitively’ (automatically, unconsciously) has the ability to assess such correlation – in the light of the available knowledge – as (v) ‘possible’ or (vi) as rather ‘improbable’ or (vi) as ‘mere fancifulness’.”[3]
The basic ability of a human being to be able to establish a ‘correlation’ of meanings with (intersubjective) environmental facts is called – at least by some – philosophers ‘truth ability’ and in the execution of truth ability one then also can speak of ‘true’ linguistic utterances or of ‘true statements’.[5]
Distinctions like ‘true’, ‘possibly true’, ‘rather not true’ or ‘in no case true’ indicate that the reality reference of human knowledge elements is very diverse and ‘dynamic’. Something that was true a moment ago may not be true the next moment. Something that has long been dismissed as ‘mere fantasy’ may suddenly appear as ‘possible’ or ‘suddenly true’. To move in this ‘dynamically correlated space of meaning’ in such a way that a certain ‘inner and outer consistency’ is preserved, is a complex challenge, which has not yet been fully understood by philosophy and the sciences, let alone even approximately ‘explained’.
The fact is: we humans can do this to a certain extent. Of course, the more complex the knowledge space is, the more diverse the linguistic interactions with other people become, the more difficult it becomes to completely understand all aspects of a linguistic statement in a situation.
‘Air act’ chatGPT
Comparing the chatbot chatGPT with these ‘basic characteristics’ of humans, one can see that chatGPT can do none of these things. (i) It cannot ask questions meaningfully on its own, since there is no reason why it should ask (unless someone induces it to ask). (ii) Text documents (of people) are sets of expressions for him, for which he has no independent assignment of meaning. So he could never independently ask or answer the ‘truth question’ – with all its dynamic shades. He takes everything at ‘face value’ or one says right away that he is ‘only dreaming’.
If chatGPT, because of its large text database, has a subset of expressions that are somehow classified as ‘true’, then the algorithm can ‘in principle’ indirectly determine ‘probabilities’ that other sets of expressions that are not classified as ‘true’ then do ‘with some probability’ appear to be ‘true’. Whether the current chatGPT algorithm uses such ‘probable truths’ explicitly is unclear. In principle, it translates texts into ‘vector spaces’ that are ‘mapped into each other’ in various ways, and parts of these vector spaces are then output again in the form of a ‘text’. The concept of ‘truth’ does not appear in these mathematical operations – to my current knowledge. If, then it would be also only the formal logical concept of truth [4]; but this lies with respect to the vector spaces ‘above’ the vector spaces, forms with respect to these a ‘meta-concept’. If one wanted to actually apply this to the vector spaces and operations on these vector spaces, then one would have to completely rewrite the code of chatGPT. If one would do this – but nobody will be able to do this – then the code of chatGPT would have the status of a formal theory (as in mathematics) (see remark [5]). From an empirical truth capability chatGPT would then still be miles away.
Hybrid illusory truths
In the use case where the algorithm named ‘chatGPT’ uses expression sets similar to the texts that humans produce and read, chatGPT navigates purely formally and with probabilities through the space of formal expression elements. However, a human who ‘reads’ the expression sets produced by chatGPT automatically (= unconsciously!) activates his or her ‘linguistic knowledge of meaning’ and projects it into the abstract expression sets of chatGBT. As one can observe (and hears and reads from others), the abstract expression sets produced by chatGBT are so similar to the usual text input of humans – purely formally – that a human can seemingly effortlessly correlate his meaning knowledge with these texts. This has the consequence that the receiving (reading, listening) human has the ‘feeling’ that chatGPT produces ‘meaningful texts’. In the ‘projection’ of the reading/listening human YES, but in the production of chatGPT NO. chatGBT has only formal expression sets (coded as vector spaces), with which it calculates ‘blindly’. It does not have ‘meanings’ in the human sense even rudimentarily.
Back to the Human?
(Last change: 27.February 2023)
How easily people are impressed by a ‘fake machine’ to the point of apparently forgetting themselves in face of the machine by feeling ‘stupid’ and ‘inefficient’, although the machine only makes ‘correlations’ between human questions and human knowledge documents in a purely formal way, is actually frightening [6a,b], [7], at least in a double sense: (i)Instead of better recognizing (and using) one’s own potentials, one stares spellbound like the famous ‘rabbit at the snake’, although the machine is still a ‘product of the human mind’. (ii) This ‘cognitive deception’ misses to better understand the actually immense potential of ‘collective human intelligence’, which of course could then be advanced by at least one evolutionary level higher by incorporating modern technologies. The challenge of the hour is ‘Collective Human-Machine Intelligence’ in the context of sustainable development with priority given to human collective intelligence. The current so-called ‘artificial (= machine) intelligence’ is only present by rather primitive algorithms. Integrated into a developed ‘collective human intelligence’ quite different forms of ‘intelligence’ could be realized, ones we currently can only dream of at most.
Commenting on other articles from other authors about chatGPT
(Last change: 14.April 2023)
[7], [8],[9],[11],[12],[13],[14]
Comments
(Last change: 3.April 2023)
wkp-en: en.wikipedia.org
[1] In the many thousands of ‘natural languages’ of this world one can observe how ‘experiential environmental facts’ can become ‘knowledge elements’ via ‘perception’, which are then correlated with different expressions in each language. Linguists (and semioticians) therefore speak here of ‘conventions’, ‘freely agreed assignments’.
[2] Due to physical interaction with the environment, which enables ‘perceptual events’ that are distinguishable from the ‘remembered and known knowledge elements’.
[3] The classification of ‘knowledge elements’ as ‘imaginations/ fantasies’ can be wrong, as many examples show, like vice versa, the classification as ‘probably correlatable’ can be wrong too!
[4] Not the ‘classical (Aristotelian) logic’ since the Aristotelian logic did not yet realize a stricCommenting on other articles from other authors about chatGPTt separation of ‘form’ (elements of expression) and ‘content’ (meaning).
[5] There are also contexts in which one speaks of ‘true statements’ although there is no relation to a concrete world experience. For example in the field of mathematics, where one likes to say that a statement is ‘true’. But this is a completely ‘different truth’. Here it is about the fact that in the context of a ‘mathematical theory’ certain ‘basic assumptions’ were made (which must have nothing to do with a concrete reality), and one then ‘derives’ other statements starting from these basic assumptions with the help of a formal concept of inference (the formal logic). A ‘derived statement’ (usually called a ‘theorem’), also has no relation to a concrete reality. It is ‘logically true’ or ‘formally true’. If one would ‘relate’ the basic assumptions of a mathematical theory to concrete reality by – certainly not very simple – ‘interpretations’ (as e.g. in ‘applied physics’), then it may be, under special conditions, that the formally derived statements of such an ’empirically interpreted abstract theory’ gain an ’empirical meaning’, which may be ‘correlatable’ under certain conditions; then such statements would not only be called ‘logically true’, but also ’empirically true’. As the history of science and philosophy of science shows, however, the ‘transition’ from empirically interpreted abstract theories to empirically interpretable inferences with truth claims is not trivial. The reason lies in the used ‘logical inference concept’. In modern formal logic there are almost ‘arbitrarily many’ different formal inference terms possible. Whether such a formal inference term really ‘adequately represents’ the structure of empirical facts via abstract structures with formal inferences is not at all certain! This pro’simulation’blem is not really clarified in the philosophy of science so far!
[6a] Weizenbaum’s 1966 chatbot ‘Eliza’, despite its simplicity, was able to make human users believe that the program ‘understood’ them even when they were told that it was just a simple algorithm. See the keyword ‚Eliza‘ in wkp-en: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA
[6b] Joseph Weizenbaum, 1966, „ELIZA. A Computer Program For the Study of Natural Language. Communication Between Man And Machine“, Communications of the ACM, Vol.9, No.1, January 1966, URL: https://cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/572/S02/weizenbaum.eliza.1966.pdf . Note: Although the program ‘Eliza’ by Weizenbaum was very simple, all users were fascinated by the program because they had the feeling “It understands me”, while the program only mirrored the questions and statements of the users. In other words, the users were ‘fascinated by themselves’ with the program as a kind of ‘mirror’.
[7] Ted Chiang, 2023, “ChatGPT Is a Blurry JPEG of the Web. OpenAI’s chatbot offers paraphrases, whereas Google offers quotes. Which do we prefer?”, The NEW YORKER, February 9, 2023. URL: https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/chatgpt-is-a-blurry-jpeg-of-the-web . Note: Chang looks to the chatGPT program using the paradigm of a ‘compression algorithm’: the abundance of information is ‘condensed/abstracted’ so that a slightly blurred image of the text volumes is created, not a 1-to-1 copy. This gives the user the impression of understanding at the expense of access to detail and accuracy. The texts of chatGPT are not ‘true’, but they ‘mute’.
[8] Dietmar Hansch, 2023, “The more honest name would be ‘Simulated Intelligence’. Which deficits bots like chatGBT suffer from and what that must mean for our dealings with them.”, FAZ Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, March 1, 2023, p.N1 . Note: While Chiang (see [7]) approaches the phenomenon chatGPT with the concept ‘compression algorithm’ Hansch prefers the terms ‘statistical-incremental learning’ as well as ‘insight learning’. For Hansch, insight learning is tied to ‘mind’ and ‘consciousness’, for which he postulates ‘equivalent structures’ in the brain. Regarding insight learning, Hansch further comments “insight learning is not only faster, but also indispensable for a deep, holistic understanding of the world, which grasps far-reaching connections as well as conveys criteria for truth and truthfulness.” It is not surprising then when Hansch writes “Insight learning is the highest form of learning…”. With reference to this frame of reference established by Hansch, he classifies chatGPT in the sense that it is only capable of ‘statistical-incremental learning’. Further, Hansch postulates for humans, “Human learning is never purely objective, we always structure the world in relation to our needs, feelings, and conscious purposes…”. He calls this the ‘human reference’ in human cognition, and it is precisely this what he also denies for chatGPT. For common designation ‘AI’ as ‘Artificial Intelligence’ he postulates that the term ‘intelligence’ in this word combination has nothing to do with the meaning we associate with ‘intelligence’ in the case of humans, so in no case has the term intelligence anything to do with ‘insight learning’, as he has stated before. To give more expression to this fact of mismatch he would rather use the term ‘simulated intelligence’ (see also [9]). This conceptual strategy seems strange, since the term simulation [10] normally presupposes that there is a clear state of affairs, for which one defines a simplified ‘model’, by means of which the behavior of the original system can then be — simplified — viewed and examined in important respects. In the present case, however, it is not quite clear what the original system should be, which is to be simulated in the case of AI. There is so far no unified definition of ‘intelligence’ in the context of ‘AI’! As far as Hansch’s terminology itself is concerned, the terms ‘statistical-incremental learning’ as well as ‘insight learning’ are not clearly defined either; the relation to observable human behavior let alone to the postulated ‘equivalent brain structures’ is arbitrarily unclear (which is not improved by the relation to terms like ‘consciousness’ and ‘mind’ which are not defined yet).
[9] Severin Tatarczyk, Feb 19, 2023, on ‘Simulated Intelligence’: https://www.severint.net/2023/02/19/kompakt-warum-ich-den-begriff-simulierte-intelligenz-bevorzuge-und-warum-chatbots-so-menschlich-auf-uns-wirken/
[10] See the term ‘simulation’ in wkp-en: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation
[11] Doris Brelowski pointed me to the following article: James Bridle, 16.March 2023, „The stupidity of AI. Artificial intelligence in its current form is based on the wholesale appropriation of existing culture, and the notion that it is actually intelligent could be actively dangerous“, URL: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/mar/16/the-stupidity-of-ai-artificial-intelligence-dall-e-chatgpt?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other . Comment: An article that knowledgeably and very sophisticatedly describes the interplay between forms of AI that are being ‘unleashed’ on the entire Internet by large corporations, and what this is doing to human culture and then, of course, to humans themselves. Two quotes from this very readable article: Quote 1: „The entirety of this kind of publicly available AI, whether it works with images or words, as well as the many data-driven applications like it, is based on this wholesale appropriation of existing culture, the scope of which we can barely comprehend. Public or private, legal or otherwise, most of the text and images scraped up by these systems exist in the nebulous domain of “fair use” (permitted in the US, but questionable if not outright illegal in the EU). Like most of what goes on inside advanced neural networks, it’s really impossible to understand how they work from the outside, rare encounters such as Lapine’s aside. But we can be certain of this: far from being the magical, novel creations of brilliant machines, the outputs of this kind of AI is entirely dependent on the uncredited and unremunerated work of generations of human artists.“ Quote 2: „Now, this didn’t happen because ChatGPT is inherently rightwing. It’s because it’s inherently stupid. It has read most of the internet, and it knows what human language is supposed to sound like, but it has no relation to reality whatsoever. It is dreaming sentences that sound about right, and listening to it talk is frankly about as interesting as listening to someone’s dreams. It is very good at producing what sounds like sense, and best of all at producing cliche and banality, which has composed the majority of its diet, but it remains incapable of relating meaningfully to the world as it actually is. Distrust anyone who pretends that this is an echo, even an approximation, of consciousness. (As this piece was going to publication, OpenAI released a new version of the system that powers ChatGPT, and said it was “less likely to make up facts”.)“
[12] David Krakauer in an Interview with Brian Gallagher in Nautilus, March 27, 2023, Does GPT-4 Really Understand What We’re Saying?, URL: https://nautil.us/does-gpt-4-really-understand-what-were-saying-291034/?_sp=d9a7861a-9644-44a7-8ba7-f95ee526d468.1680528060130. David Krakauer, an evolutionary theorist and president of the Santa Fe Institute for complexity science, analyzes the role of chat-GPT-4 models compared to the human language model and a more differentiated understanding of what ‘understanding’ and ‘Intelligence’ could mean. His main points of criticism are in close agreement with the position int he text above. He points out that (i) one has clearly to distinguish between the ‘information concept’ of Shannon and the concept of ‘meaning’. Something can represent a high information load but can nevertheless be empty of any meaning. Then he points out (ii) that there are several possible variants of the meaning of ‘understanding’. Coordinating with human understanding can work, but to understand in a constructive sense: no. Then Krakauer (iii) relates GPT-4 to the standard model of science which he characterizes as ‘parsimony’; chat-GPT-4 is clearly the opposite. Another point (iv) is the fact, that human experience has an ’emotional’ and a ‘physical’ aspect based on somato-sensory perceptions within its body. This is missing with GPT-4. This is somehow related (v) to the fact, that the human brain with its ‘algorithms’ is the product of millions of years of evolution in a complex environment. The GPT-4 algorithms have nothing comparable; they have only to ‘convince’ humans. Finally (vi) humans can generate ‘physical models’ inspired by their experience and can quickly argue by using such models. Thus Krakauer concludes “So the narrative that says we’ve rediscovered human reasoning is so misguided in so many ways. Just demonstrably false. That can’t be the way to go.”
[13] By Marie-José Kolly (text) and Merlin Flügel (illustration), 11.04.2023, “Chatbots like GPT can form wonderful sentences. That’s exactly what makes them a problem.” Artificial intelligence fools us into believing something that is not. A plea against the general enthusiasm. Online newspaper ‘Republik’ from Schweiz, URL: https://www.republik.ch/2023/04/11/chatbots-wie-gpt-koennen-wunderbare-saetze-bilden-genau-das-macht-sie-zum-problem? Here are some comments:
The text by Marie-José Kolly stands out because the algorithm named chatGPT(4) is characterized here both in its input-output behavior and additionally a comparison to humans is made at least to some extent.
The basic problem of the algorithm chatGPT(4) is (as also pointed out in my text above) that it has as input data exclusively text sets (also those of the users), which are analyzed according to purely statistical procedures in their formal properties. On the basis of the analyzed regularities, arbitrary text collages can then be generated, which are very similar in form to human texts, so much so that many people take them for ‘human-generated texts’. In fact, however, the algorithm lacks what we humans call ‘world knowledge’, it lacks real ‘thinking’, it lacks ‘own’ value positions, and the algorithm ‘does not understand’ its own text.
Due to this lack of its own reference to the world, the algorithm can be manipulated very easily via the available text volumes. A ‘mass production’ of ‘junk texts’, of ‘disinformation’ is thus very easily possible.
If one considers that modern democracies can only function if the majority of citizens have a common basis of facts that can be assumed to be ‘true’, a common body of knowledge, and reliable media, then the chatGPT(4) algorithm can massively destroy precisely these requirements for a democracy.
The interesting question then is whether chatGPT(4) can actually support a human society, especially a democratic society, in a positive-constructive way?
In any case, it is known that humans learn the use of their language from childhood on in direct contact with a real world, largely playfully, in interaction with other children/people. For humans ‘words’ are never isolated quantities, but they are always dynamically integrated into equally dynamic contexts. Language is never only ‘form’ but always at the same time ‘content’, and this in many different ways. This is only possible because humans have complex cognitive abilities, which include corresponding memory abilities as well as abilities for generalization.
The cultural-historical development from spoken language, via writing, books, libraries up to enormous digital data memories has indeed achieved tremendous things concerning the ‘forms’ of language and therein – possibly – encoded knowledge, but there is the impression that the ‘automation’ of the forms drives them into ‘isolation’, so that the forms lose more and more their contact to reality, to meaning, to truth. Language as a central moment of enabling more complex knowledge and more complex action is thus increasingly becoming a ‘parasite’ that claims more and more space and in the process destroys more and more meaning and truth.
[14] Gary Marcus, April 2023, Hoping for the Best as AI Evolves, Gary Marcus on the systems that “pose a real and imminent threat to the fabric of society.” Communications of the ACM, Volume 66, Issue 4, April 2023 pp 6–7, https://doi.org/10.1145/3583078 , Comment: Gary Marcus writes on the occasion of the effects of systems like chatGPT(OpenAI), Dalle-E2 and Lensa about the seriously increasing negative effects these tools can have within a society, to an extent that poses a serious threat to every society! These tools are inherently flawed in the areas of thinking, facts and hallucinations. At near zero cost, they can be used to create and execute large-scale disinformation campaigns very quickly. Looking to the globally important website ‘Stack Overflow’ for programmers as an example, one could (and can) see how the inflationary use of chatGPT due to its inherent many flaws pushes the Stack Overflow’s management team having to urge its users to completely stop using chatGPT in order to prevent the site’s collapse after 14 years. In the case of big players who specifically target disinformation, such a measure is ineffective. These players aim to create a data world in which no one will be able to trust anyone. With this in mind, Gary Marcus sets out 4 postulates that every society should implement: (1) Automatically generated not certified content should be completely banned; (2) Legally effective measures must be adopted that can prevent ‘misinformation’; (3) User accounts must be made tamper-proof; (4) A new generation of AI tools is needed that can verify facts. (Translated with partial support from www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version))
The whole text shows a dynamic, which induces many changes. Difficult to plan ‘in advance’.
Perhaps, some time, it will look like a ‘book’, at least ‘for a moment’.
I have started a ‘book project’ in parallel. This was motivated by the need to provide potential users of our new oksimo.R software with a coherent explanation of how the oksimo.R software, when used, generates an empirical theory in the format of a screenplay. The primary source of the book is in German and will be translated step by step here in the uffmm.blog.
INTRODUCTION
In a rather foundational paper about an idea, how one can generalize ‘systems engineering’ [*1] to the art of ‘theory engineering’ [1] a new conceptual framework has been outlined for a ‘sustainable applied empirical theory (SAET)’. Part of this new framework has been the idea that the classical recourse to groups of special experts (mostly ‘engineers’ in engineering) is too restrictive in the light of the new requirement of being sustainable: sustainability is primarily based on ‘diversity’ combined with the ‘ability to predict’ from this diversity probable future states which keep life alive. The aspect of diversity induces the challenge to see every citizen as a ‘natural expert’, because nobody can know in advance and from some non-existing absolut point of truth, which knowledge is really important. History shows that the ‘mainstream’ is usually to a large degree ‘biased’ [*1b].
With this assumption, that every citizen is a ‘natural expert’, science turns into a ‘general science’ where all citizens are ‘natural members’ of science. I will call this more general concept of science ‘sustainable citizen science (SCS)’ or ‘Citizen Science 2.0 (CS2)’. The important point here is that a sustainable citizen science is not necessarily an ‘arbitrary’ process. While the requirement of ‘diversity’ relates to possible contents, to possible ideas, to possible experiments, and the like, it follows from the other requirement of ‘predictability’/ of being able to make some useful ‘forecasts’, that the given knowledge has to be in a format, which allows in a transparent way the construction of some consequences, which ‘derive’ from the ‘given’ knowledge and enable some ‘new’ knowledge. This ability of forecasting has often been understood as the business of ‘logic’ providing an ‘inference concept’ given by ‘rules of deduction’ and a ‘practical pattern (on the meta level)’, which defines how these rules have to be applied to satisfy the inference concept. But, looking to real life, to everyday life or to modern engineering and economy, one can learn that ‘forecasting’ is a complex process including much more than only cognitive structures nicely fitting into some formulas. For this more realistic forecasting concept we will use here the wording ‘common logic’ and for the cognitive adventure where common logic is applied we will use the wording ‘common science’. ‘Common science’ is structurally not different from ‘usual science’, but it has a substantial wider scope and is using the whole of mankind as ‘experts’.
The following chapters/ sections try to illustrate this common science view by visiting different special views which all are only ‘parts of a whole’, a whole which we can ‘feel’ in every moment, but which we can not yet completely grasp with our theoretical concepts.
CONTENT
Language (Main message: “The ordinary language is the ‘meta language’ to every special language. This can be used as a ‘hint’ to something really great: the mystery of the ‘self-creating’ power of the ordinary language which for most people is unknown although it happens every moment.”)
Concrete Abstract Statements (Main message: “… you will probably detect, that nearly all words of a language are ‘abstract words’ activating ‘abstract meanings’. …If you cannot provide … ‘concrete situations’ the intended meaning of your abstract words will stay ‘unclear’: they can mean ‘nothing or all’, depending from the decoding of the hearer.”)
True False Undefined (Main message: “… it reveals that ’empirical (observational) evidence’ is not necessarily an automatism: it presupposes appropriate meaning spaces embedded in sets of preferences, which are ‘observation friendly’.“
Beyond Now (Main message: “With the aid of … sequences revealing possible changes the NOW is turned into a ‘moment’ embedded in a ‘process’, which is becoming the more important reality. The NOW is something, but the PROCESS is more.“)
Playing with the Future (Main message: “In this sense seems ‘language’ to be the master tool for every brain to mediate its dynamic meaning structures with symbolic fix points (= words, expressions) which as such do not change, but the meaning is ‘free to change’ in any direction. And this ‘built in ‘dynamics’ represents an ‘internal potential’ for uncountable many possible states, which could perhaps become ‘true’ in some ‘future state’. Thus ‘future’ can begin in these potentials, and thinking is the ‘playground’ for possible futures.(but see [18])”)
Forecasting – Prediction: What? (This chapter explains the cognitive machinery behind forecasting/ predictions, how groups of human actors can elaborate shared descriptions, and how it is possible to start with sequences of singularities to built up a growing picture of the empirical world which appears as a radical infinite and indeterministic space. )
!!! From here all the following chapters have to be re-written !!!
Boolean Logic (Explains what boolean logic is, how it enables the working of programmable machines, but that it is of nearly no help for the ‘heart’ of forecasting.)
/* Often people argue against the usage of the wikipedia encyclopedia as not ‘scientific’ because the ‘content’ of an entry in this encyclopedia can ‘change’. This presupposes the ‘classical view’ of scientific texts to be ‘stable’, which presupposes further, that such a ‘stable text’ describes some ‘stable subject matter’. But this view of ‘steadiness’ as the major property of ‘true descriptions’ is in no correspondence with real scientific texts! The reality of empirical science — even as in some special disciplines like ‘physics’ — is ‘change’. Looking to Aristotle’s view of nature, to Galileo Galilei, to Newton, to Einstein and many others, you will not find a ‘single steady picture’ of nature and science, and physics is only a very simple strand of science compared to the live-sciences and many others. Thus wikipedia is a real scientific encyclopedia give you the breath of world knowledge with all its strengths and limits at once. For another, more general argument, see In Favour for Wikipedia */
[*1] Meaning operator ‘…’ : In this text (and in nearly all other texts of this author) the ‘inverted comma’ is used quite heavily. In everyday language this is not common. In some special languages (theory of formal languages or in programming languages or in meta-logic) the inverted comma is used in some special way. In this text, which is primarily a philosophical text, the inverted comma sign is used as a ‘meta-language operator’ to raise the intention of the reader to be aware, that the ‘meaning’ of the word enclosed in the inverted commas is ‘text specific’: in everyday language usage the speaker uses a word and assumes tacitly that his ‘intended meaning’ will be understood by the hearer of his utterance as ‘it is’. And the speaker will adhere to his assumption until some hearer signals, that her understanding is different. That such a difference is signaled is quite normal, because the ‘meaning’ which is associated with a language expression can be diverse, and a decision, which one of these multiple possible meanings is the ‘intended one’ in a certain context is often a bit ‘arbitrary’. Thus, it can be — but must not — a meta-language strategy, to comment to the hearer (or here: the reader), that a certain expression in a communication is ‘intended’ with a special meaning which perhaps is not the commonly assumed one. Nevertheless, because the ‘common meaning’ is no ‘clear and sharp subject’, a ‘meaning operator’ with the inverted commas has also not a very sharp meaning. But in the ‘game of language’ it is more than nothing 🙂
[*1b] That the main stream ‘is biased’ is not an accident, not a ‘strange state’, not a ‘failure’, it is the ‘normal state’ based on the deeper structure how human actors are ‘built’ and ‘genetically’ and ‘cultural’ ‘programmed’. Thus the challenge to ‘survive’ as part of the ‘whole biosphere’ is not a ‘partial task’ to solve a single problem, but to solve in some sense the problem how to ‘shape the whole biosphere’ in a way, which enables a live in the universe for the time beyond that point where the sun is turning into a ‘red giant’ whereby life will be impossible on the planet earth (some billion years ahead)[22]. A remarkable text supporting this ‘complex view of sustainability’ can be found in Clark and Harvey, summarized at the end of the text. [23]
[*2] The meaning of the expression ‘normal’ is comparable to a wicked problem. In a certain sense we act in our everyday world ‘as if there exists some standard’ for what is assumed to be ‘normal’. Look for instance to houses, buildings: to a certain degree parts of a house have a ‘standard format’ assuming ‘normal people’. The whole traffic system, most parts of our ‘daily life’ are following certain ‘standards’ making ‘planning’ possible. But there exists a certain percentage of human persons which are ‘different’ compared to these introduced standards. We say that they have a ‘handicap’ compared to this assumed ‘standard’, but this so-called ‘standard’ is neither 100% true nor is the ‘given real world’ in its properties a ‘100% subject’. We have learned that ‘properties of the real world’ are distributed in a rather ‘statistical manner’ with different probabilities of occurrences. To ‘find our way’ in these varying occurrences we try to ‘mark’ the main occurrences as ‘normal’ to enable a basic structure for expectations and planning. Thus, if in this text the expression ‘normal’ is used it refers to the ‘most common occurrences’.
[*3] Thus we have here a ‘threefold structure’ embracing ‘perception events, memory events, and expression events’. Perception events represent ‘concrete events’; memory events represent all kinds of abstract events but they all have a ‘handle’ which maps to subsets of concrete events; expression events are parts of an abstract language system, which as such is dynamically mapped onto the abstract events. The main source for our knowledge about perceptions, memory and expressions is experimental psychology enhanced by many other disciplines.
[*4] Characterizing language expressions by meaning – the fate of any grammar: the sentence ” … ‘words’ (= expressions) of a language which can activate such abstract meanings are understood as ‘abstract words’, ‘general words’, ‘category words’ or the like.” is pointing to a deep property of every ordinary language, which represents the real power of language but at the same time the great weakness too: expressions as such have no meaning. Hundreds, thousands, millions of words arranged in ‘texts’, ‘documents’ can show some statistical patterns’ and as such these patterns can give some hint which expressions occur ‘how often’ and in ‘which combinations’, but they never can give a clue to the associated meaning(s). During more than three-thousand years humans have tried to describe ordinary language in a more systematic way called ‘grammar’. Due to this radically gap between ‘expressions’ as ‘observable empirical facts’ and ‘meaning constructs’ hidden inside the brain it was all the time a difficult job to ‘classify’ expressions as representing a certain ‘type’ of expression like ‘nouns’, ‘predicates’, ‘adjectives’, ‘defining article’ and the like. Without regressing to the assumed associated meaning such a classification is not possible. On account of the fuzziness of every meaning ‘sharp definitions’ of such ‘word classes’ was never and is not yet possible. One of the last big — perhaps the biggest ever — project of a complete systematic grammar of a language was the grammar project of the ‘Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR’ (‘Academy of Sciences of the GDR’) from 1981 with the title “Grundzüge einer Deutschen Grammatik” (“Basic features of a German grammar”). A huge team of scientists worked together using many modern methods. But in the preface you can read, that many important properties of the language are still not sufficiently well describable and explainable. See: Karl Erich Heidolph, Walter Flämig, Wolfgang Motsch et al.: Grundzüge einer deutschen Grammatik. Akademie, Berlin 1981, 1028 Seiten.
[*5] Differing opinions about a given situation manifested in uttered expressions are a very common phenomenon in everyday communication. In some sense this is ‘natural’, can happen, and it should be no substantial problem to ‘solve the riddle of being different’. But as you can experience, the ability of people to solve the occurrence of different opinions is often quite weak. Culture is suffering by this as a whole.
[1] Gerd Doeben-Henisch, 2022, From SYSTEMS Engineering to THEORYEngineering, see: https://www.uffmm.org/2022/05/26/from-systems-engineering-to-theory-engineering/(Remark: At the time of citation this post was not yet finished, because there are other posts ‘corresponding’ with that post, which are too not finished. Knowledge is a dynamic network of interwoven views …).
[1d] ‘usual science’ is the game of science without having a sustainable format like in citizen science 2.0.
[2] Science, see e.g. wkp-en: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
Citation = “In modern science, the term “theory” refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with the scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that scientific tests should be able to provide empirical support for it, or empirical contradiction (“falsify“) of it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[1] in contrast to more common uses of the word “theory” that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which in formal terms is better characterized by the word hypothesis).[2] Scientific theories are distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testableconjectures, and from scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of the way nature behaves under certain conditions.”
[2b] History of science in wkp-en: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science#Scientific_Revolution_and_birth_of_New_Science
[3] Theory, see wkp-en: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#:~:text=A%20theory%20is%20a%20rational,or%20no%20discipline%20at%20all.
Citation = “A theory is a rational type of abstract thinking about a phenomenon, or the results of such thinking. The process of contemplative and rational thinking is often associated with such processes as observational study or research. Theories may be scientific, belong to a non-scientific discipline, or no discipline at all. Depending on the context, a theory’s assertions might, for example, include generalized explanations of how nature works. The word has its roots in ancient Greek, but in modern use it has taken on several related meanings.”
Citation = “In modern science, the term “theory” refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with the scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that scientific tests should be able to provide empirical support for it, or empirical contradiction (“falsify“) of it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[1] in contrast to more common uses of the word “theory” that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which in formal terms is better characterized by the word hypothesis).[2] Scientific theories are distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testableconjectures, and from scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of the way nature behaves under certain conditions.”
[4b] Empiricism in wkp-en: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism
[4c] Scientific method in wkp-en: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Citation =”The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century (with notable practitioners in previous centuries). It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based statistical testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.[1][2][3] [4c]
and
Citation = “The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations[A][a][b] agree with or conflict with the expectations deduced from a hypothesis.[6]: Book I, [6.54] pp.372, 408 [b] Experiments can take place anywhere from a garage to a remote mountaintop to CERN’s Large Hadron Collider. There are difficulties in a formulaic statement of method, however. Though the scientific method is often presented as a fixed sequence of steps, it represents rather a set of general principles.[7] Not all steps take place in every scientific inquiry (nor to the same degree), and they are not always in the same order.[8][9]”
[5] Gerd Doeben-Henisch, “Is Mathematics a Fake? No! Discussing N.Bourbaki, Theory of Sets (1968) – Introduction”, 2022, https://www.uffmm.org/2022/06/06/n-bourbaki-theory-of-sets-1968-introduction/
[6] Logic, see wkp-en: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
[7] W. C. Kneale, The Development of Logic, Oxford University Press (1962)
[8] Set theory, in wkp-en: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_theory
[9] N.Bourbaki, Theory of Sets , 1968, with a chapter about structures, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89l%C3%A9ments_de_math%C3%A9matique
[10] = [5]
[11] Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein ( 1889 – 1951): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein
[12] Ludwig Wittgenstein, 1953: Philosophische Untersuchungen [PU], 1953: Philosophical Investigations [PI], translated by G. E. M. Anscombe /* For more details see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Investigations */
[13] Wikipedia EN, Speech acts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_act
[14] While the world view constructed in a brain is ‘virtual’ compared to the ‘real word’ outside the brain (where the body outside the brain is also functioning as ‘real world’ in relation to the brain), does the ‘virtual world’ in the brain function for the brain mostly ‘as if it is the real world’. Only under certain conditions can the brain realize a ‘difference’ between the triggering outside real world and the ‘virtual substitute for the real world’: You want to use your bicycle ‘as usual’ and then suddenly you have to notice that it is not at that place where is ‘should be’. …
[15] Propositional Calculus, see wkp-en: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propositional_calculus#:~:text=Propositional%20calculus%20is%20a%20branch,of%20arguments%20based%20on%20them.
[16] Boolean algebra, see wkp-en: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_algebra
[17] Boolean (or propositional) Logic: As one can see in the mentioned articles of the English wikipedia, the term ‘boolean logic’ is not common. The more logic-oriented authors prefer the term ‘boolean calculus’ [15] and the more math-oriented authors prefer the term ‘boolean algebra’ [16]. In the view of this author the general view is that of ‘language use’ with ‘logic inference’ as leading idea. Therefore the main topic is ‘logic’, in the case of propositional logic reduced to a simple calculus whose similarity with ‘normal language’ is widely ‘reduced’ to a play with abstract names and operators. Recommended: the historical comments in [15].
[18] Clearly, thinking alone can not necessarily induce a possible state which along the time line will become a ‘real state’. There are numerous factors ‘outside’ the individual thinking which are ‘driving forces’ to push real states to change. But thinking can in principle synchronize with other individual thinking and — in some cases — can get a ‘grip’ on real factors causing real changes.
[19] This kind of knowledge is not delivered by brain science alone but primarily from experimental (cognitive) psychology which examines observable behavior and ‘interprets’ this behavior with functional models within an empirical theory.
[20] Predicate Logic or First-Order Logic or … see: wkp-en: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-order_logic#:~:text=First%2Dorder%20logic%E2%80%94also%20known,%2C%20linguistics%2C%20and%20computer%20science.
[21] Gerd Doeben-Henisch, In Favour of Wikipedia, https://www.uffmm.org/2022/07/31/in-favour-of-wikipedia/, 31 July 2022
[22] The sun, see wkp-ed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun (accessed 8 Aug 2022)
[23] By Clark, William C., and Alicia G. Harley – https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-012420-043621, Clark, William C., and Alicia G. Harley. 2020. “Sustainability Science: Toward a Synthesis.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 45 (1): 331–86, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=109026069
[24] Sustainability in wkp-en: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability#Dimensions_of_sustainability
[27] SDG 4 in wkp-en: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_Development_Goal_4
[28] Thomas Rid, Rise of the Machines. A Cybernetic History, W.W.Norton & Company, 2016, New York – London
[29] Doeben-Henisch, G., 2006, Reducing Negative Complexity by a Semiotic System In: Gudwin, R., & Queiroz, J., (Eds). Semiotics and Intelligent Systems Development. Hershey et al: Idea Group Publishing, 2006, pp.330-342
[30] Döben-Henisch, G., Reinforcing the global heartbeat: Introducing the planet earth simulator project, In M. Faßler & C. Terkowsky (Eds.), URBAN FICTIONS. Die Zukunft des Städtischen. München, Germany: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 2006, pp.251-263
[29] The idea that individual disciplines are not good enough for the ‘whole of knowledge’ is expressed in a clear way in a video of the theoretical physicist and philosopher Carlo Rovell: Carlo Rovelli on physics and philosophy, June 1, 2022, Video from the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics. Theoretical physicist, philosopher, and international bestselling author Carlo Rovelli joins Lauren and Colin for a conversation about the quest for quantum gravity, the importance of unlearning outdated ideas, and a very unique way to get out of a speeding ticket.
[] By Azote for Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University – https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/research-news/2016-06-14-how-food-connects-all-the-sdgs.html, CC BY 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=112497386
[] Sierra Club in wkp-en: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_Club
[] Herbert Bruderer, Where is the Cradle of the Computer?, June 20, 2022, URL: https://cacm.acm.org/blogs/blog-cacm/262034-where-is-the-cradle-of-the-computer/fulltext (accessed: July 20, 2022)
[] UN. Secretary-General; World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987, Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development : note / by the Secretary-General., https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/139811 (accessed: July 20, 2022) (A more readable format: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf )
/* Comment: Gro Harlem Brundtland (Norway) has been the main coordinator of this document */
[] Chaudhuri, S.,et al.Neurosymbolic programming. Foundations and Trends in Programming Languages 7, 158-243 (2021).
[] Nello Cristianini, Teresa Scantamburlo, James Ladyman, The social turn of artificial intelligence, in: AI & SOCIETY, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01289-8
[] Carl DiSalvo, Phoebe Sengers, and Hrönn Brynjarsdóttir, Mapping the landscape of sustainable hci, In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’10, page 1975–1984, New York, NY, USA, 2010. Association for Computing Machinery.
[] Claude Draude, Christian Gruhl, Gerrit Hornung, Jonathan Kropf, Jörn Lamla, Jan Marco Leimeister, Bernhard Sick, Gerd Stumme, Social Machines, in: Informatik Spektrum, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00287-021-01421-4
[] EU: High-Level Expert Group on AI (AI HLEG), A definition of AI: Main capabilities and scientific disciplines, European Commission communications published on 25 April 2018 (COM(2018) 237 final), 7 December 2018 (COM(2018) 795 final) and 8 April 2019 (COM(2019) 168 final). For our definition of Artificial Intelligence (AI), please refer to our document published on 8 April 2019: https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=56341
[] EU: High-Level Expert Group on AI (AI HLEG), Policy and investment recommendations for trustworthy Artificial Intelligence, 2019, https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/policy-and-investment-recommendations-trustworthy-artificial-intelligence
[] European Union. Regulation 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC General Data Protection Regulation; http://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj (Wirksam ab 25.Mai 2018) [26.2.2022]
[] C.S. Holling. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4(1):1–23, 1973
[] John P. van Gigch. 1991. System Design Modeling and Metamodeling. Springer US. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-0676-2
[] Gudwin, R.R. (2003), On a Computational Model of the Peircean Semiosis, IEEE KIMAS 2003 Proceedings
[] J.A. Jacko and A. Sears, Eds., The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook. Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies, and emerging Applications. 1st edition, 2003.
[] LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., & Hinton, G. Deep learning. Nature 521, 436-444 (2015).
[] Lenat, D. What AI can learn from Romeo & Juliet.Forbes (2019)
[] Pierre Lévy, Collective Intelligence. mankind’s emerging world in cyberspace, Perseus books, Cambridge (M A), 1997 (translated from the French Edition 1994 by Robert Bonnono)
[] Lexikon der Nachhaltigkeit, ‘Starke Nachhaltigkeit‘, https://www.nachhaltigkeit.info/artikel/schwache_vs_starke_nachhaltigkeit_1687.htm (acessed: July 21, 2022)
[] Michael L. Littman, Ifeoma Ajunwa, Guy Berger, Craig Boutilier, Morgan Currie, Finale Doshi-Velez, Gillian Hadfield, Michael C. Horowitz, Charles Isbell, Hiroaki Kitano, Karen Levy, Terah Lyons, Melanie Mitchell, Julie Shah, Steven Sloman, Shannon Vallor, and Toby Walsh. “Gathering Strength, Gathering Storms: The One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence (AI100) 2021 Study Panel Report.” Stanford University, Stanford, CA, September 2021. Doc: http://ai100.stanford.edu/2021-report.
[] Kathryn Merrick. Value systems for developmental cognitive robotics: A survey. Cognitive Systems Research, 41:38 – 55, 2017
[] Illah Reza Nourbakhsh and Jennifer Keating, AI and Humanity, MIT Press, 2020 /* An examination of the implications for society of rapidly advancing artificial intelligence systems, combining a humanities perspective with technical analysis; includes exercises and discussion questions. */
[] Olazaran, M. , A sociological history of the neural network controversy. Advances in Computers37, 335-425 (1993).
[] Friedrich August Hayek (1945), The use of knowledge in society. The American Economic Review 35, 4 (1945), 519–530
[] Karl Popper, „A World of Propensities“, in: Karl Popper, „A World of Propensities“, Thoemmes Press, Bristol, (Vortrag 1988, leicht erweitert neu abgedruckt 1990, repr. 1995)
[] Karl Popper, „Towards an Evolutionary Theory of Knowledge“, in: Karl Popper, „A World of Propensities“, Thoemmes Press, Bristol, (Vortrag 1989, ab gedruckt in 1990, repr. 1995)
[] Karl Popper, „All Life is Problem Solving“, Artikel, ursprünglich ein Vortrag 1991 auf Deutsch, erstmalig publiziert in dem Buch (auf Deutsch) „Alles Leben ist Problemlösen“ (1994), dann in dem Buch (auf Englisch) „All Life is Problem Solving“, 1999, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, London – New York
[] A. Sears and J.A. Jacko, Eds., The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook. Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies, and emerging Applications. 2nd edition, 2008.
[] Skaburskis, Andrejs (19 December 2008). “The origin of “wicked problems””. Planning Theory & Practice. 9 (2): 277-280. doi:10.1080/14649350802041654. At the end of Rittel’s presentation, West Churchman responded with that pensive but expressive movement of voice that some may well remember, ‘Hmm, those sound like “wicked problems.”‘
[] Thoppilan, R., et al. LaMDA: Language models for dialog applications. arXiv 2201.08239 (2022).
[] Wurm, Daniel; Zielinski, Oliver; Lübben, Neeske; Jansen, Maike; Ramesohl, Stephan (2021) : Wege in eine ökologische Machine Economy: Wir brauchen eine ‘Grüne Governance der Machine Economy’, um das Zusammenspiel von Internet of Things, Künstlicher Intelligenz und Distributed Ledger Technology ökologisch zu gestalten, Wuppertal Report, No. 22, Wuppertal Institut für Klima, Umwelt, Energie, Wuppertal, https://doi.org/10.48506/opus-7828
[] Aimee van Wynsberghe, Sustainable AI: AI for sustainability and the sustainability of AI, in: AI and Ethics (2021) 1:213–218, see: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681
[] R. I. Damper (2000), Editorial for the special issue on ‘Emergent Properties of Complex Systems’: Emergence and levels of abstraction. International Journal of Systems Science 31, 7 (2000), 811–818. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/002077200406543
[] Gerd Doeben-Henisch (2004), The Planet Earth Simulator Project – A Case Study in Computational Semiotics, IEEE AFRICON 2004, pp.417 – 422
[] Eric Bonabeau (2009), Decisions 2.0: The power of collective intelligence. MIT Sloan Management Review 50, 2 (Winter 2009), 45-52.
[] Jim Giles (2005), Internet encyclopaedias go head to head. Nature 438, 7070 (Dec. 2005), 900–901. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1038/438900a
[] T. Bosse, C. M. Jonker, M. C. Schut, and J. Treur (2006), Collective representational content for shared extended mind. Cognitive Systems Research 7, 2-3 (2006), pp.151-174, DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2005.11.007
[] Romina Cachia, Ramón Compañó, and Olivier Da Costa (2007), Grasping the potential of online social networks for foresight. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 74, 8 (2007), oo.1179-1203. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2007.05.006
[] Tom Gruber (2008), Collective knowledge systems: Where the social web meets the semantic web. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 6, 1 (2008), 4–13. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2007.11.011
[] Luca Iandoli, Mark Klein, and Giuseppe Zollo (2009), Enabling on-line deliberation and collective decision-making through large-scale argumentation. International Journal of Decision Support System Technology 1, 1 (Jan. 2009), 69–92. DOI:https://doi.org/10.4018/jdsst.2009010105
[] Shuangling Luo, Haoxiang Xia, Taketoshi Yoshida, and Zhongtuo Wang (2009), Toward collective intelligence of online communities: A primitive conceptual model. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering 18, 2 (01 June 2009), 203–221. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11518-009-5095-0
[] Dawn G. Gregg (2010), Designing for collective intelligence. Communications of the ACM 53, 4 (April 2010), 134–138. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1721654.1721691
[] Rolf Pfeifer, Jan Henrik Sieg, Thierry Bücheler, and Rudolf Marcel Füchslin. 2010. Crowdsourcing, open innovation and collective intelligence in the scientific method: A research agenda and operational framework. (2010). DOI:https://doi.org/10.21256/zhaw-4094
[] Martijn C. Schut. 2010. On model design for simulation of collective intelligence. Information Sciences 180, 1 (2010), 132–155. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2009.08.006 Special Issue on Collective Intelligence
[] Dimitrios J. Vergados, Ioanna Lykourentzou, and Epaminondas Kapetanios (2010), A resource allocation framework for collective intelligence system engineering. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Management of Emergent Digital EcoSystems (MEDES’10). ACM, New York, NY, 182–188. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1936254.1936285
[] Anita Williams Woolley, Christopher F. Chabris, Alex Pentland, Nada Hashmi, and Thomas W. Malone (2010), Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science 330, 6004 (2010), 686–688. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1193147
[] Michael A. Woodley and Edward Bell (2011), Is collective intelligence (mostly) the General Factor of Personality? A comment on Woolley, Chabris, Pentland, Hashmi and Malone (2010). Intelligence 39, 2 (2011), 79–81. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2011.01.004
[] Joshua Introne, Robert Laubacher, Gary Olson, and Thomas Malone (2011), The climate CoLab: Large scale model-based collaborative planning. In Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Collaboration Technologies and Systems (CTS’11). 40–47. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/CTS.2011.5928663
[] Miguel de Castro Neto and Ana Espírtio Santo (2012), Emerging collective intelligence business models. In MCIS 2012 Proceedings. Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/mcis2012/14
[] Peng Liu, Zhizhong Li (2012), Task complexity: A review and conceptualization framework, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 42 (2012), pp. 553 – 568
[] Sean Wise, Robert A. Paton, and Thomas Gegenhuber. (2012), Value co-creation through collective intelligence in the public sector: A review of US and European initiatives. VINE 42, 2 (2012), 251–276. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1108/03055721211227273
[] Antonietta Grasso and Gregorio Convertino (2012), Collective intelligence in organizations: Tools and studies. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 21, 4 (01 Oct 2012), 357–369. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-012-9165-3
[] Sandro Georgi and Reinhard Jung (2012), Collective intelligence model: How to describe collective intelligence. In Advances in Intelligent and Soft Computing. Vol. 113. Springer, 53–64. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25321-8_5
[] H. Santos, L. Ayres, C. Caminha, and V. Furtado (2012), Open government and citizen participation in law enforcement via crowd mapping. IEEE Intelligent Systems 27 (2012), 63–69. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2012.80
[] Jörg Schatzmann & René Schäfer & Frederik Eichelbaum (2013), Foresight 2.0 – Definition, overview & evaluation, Eur J Futures Res (2013) 1:15 DOI 10.1007/s40309-013-0015-4
[] Sylvia Ann Hewlett, Melinda Marshall, and Laura Sherbin (2013), How diversity can drive innovation. Harvard Business Review 91, 12 (2013), 30–30
[] Tony Diggle (2013), Water: How collective intelligence initiatives can address this challenge. Foresight 15, 5 (2013), 342–353. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1108/FS-05-2012-0032
[] Hélène Landemore and Jon Elster. 2012. Collective Wisdom: Principles and Mechanisms. Cambridge University Press. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511846427
[] Jerome C. Glenn (2013), Collective intelligence and an application by the millennium project. World Futures Review 5, 3 (2013), 235–243. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1946756713497331
[] Detlef Schoder, Peter A. Gloor, and Panagiotis Takis Metaxas (2013), Social media and collective intelligence—Ongoing and future research streams. KI – Künstliche Intelligenz 27, 1 (1 Feb. 2013), 9–15. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s13218-012-0228-x
[] V. Singh, G. Singh, and S. Pande (2013), Emergence, self-organization and collective intelligence—Modeling the dynamics of complex collectives in social and organizational settings. In 2013 UKSim 15th International Conference on Computer Modelling and Simulation. 182–189. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/UKSim.2013.77
[] A. Kornrumpf and U. Baumöl (2014), A design science approach to collective intelligence systems. In 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 361–370. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2014.53
[] Michael A. Peters and Richard Heraud. 2015. Toward a political theory of social innovation: Collective intelligence and the co-creation of social goods. 3, 3 (2015), 7–23. https://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/handle/10289/9569
[] Juho Salminen. 2015. The Role of Collective Intelligence in Crowdsourcing Innovation. PhD dissertation. Lappeenranta University of Technology
[] Aelita Skarzauskiene and Monika Maciuliene (2015), Modelling the index of collective intelligence in online community projects. In International Conference on Cyber Warfare and Security. Academic Conferences International Limited, 313
[] AYA H. KIMURA and ABBY KINCHY (2016), Citizen Science: Probing the Virtues and Contexts of Participatory Research, Engaging Science, Technology, and Society 2 (2016), 331-361, DOI:10.17351/ests2016.099
[] Philip Tetlow, Dinesh Garg, Leigh Chase, Mark Mattingley-Scott, Nicholas Bronn, Kugendran Naidoo†, Emil Reinert (2022), Towards a Semantic Information Theory (Introducing Quantum Corollas), arXiv:2201.05478v1 [cs.IT] 14 Jan 2022, 28 pages
[] Melanie Mitchell, What Does It Mean to Align AI With Human Values?, quanta magazin, Quantized Columns, 19.Devember 2022, https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-does-it-mean-to-align-ai-with-human-values-20221213#
Comment by Gerd Doeben-Henisch:
[] Nick Bostrom. Superintelligence. Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford University Press, Oxford (UK), 1 edition, 2014.
[] Scott Aaronson, Reform AI Alignment, Update: 22.November 2022, https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=6821
[] Andrew Y. Ng, Stuart J. Russell, Algorithms for Inverse Reinforcement Learning, ICML 2000: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Machine LearningJune 2000 Pages 663–670
[] Pat Langley (ed.), ICML ’00: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Machine Learning, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., 340 Pine Street, Sixth Floor, San Francisco, CA, United States, Conference 29 June 2000- 2 July 2000, 29.June 2000
Abstract: Extrapolating Beyond Suboptimal Demonstrations via Inverse Reinforcement Learning from Observations Daniel S. Brown * 1 Wonjoon Goo * 1 Prabhat Nagarajan 2 Scott Niekum 1 You can read in the abstract: “A critical flaw of existing inverse reinforcement learning (IRL) methods is their inability to significantly outperform the demonstrator. This is because IRL typically seeks a reward function that makes the demonstrator appear near-optimal, rather than inferring the underlying intentions of the demonstrator that may have been poorly executed in practice. In this paper, we introduce a novel reward-learning-from-observation algorithm, Trajectory-ranked Reward EXtrapolation (T-REX), that extrapolates beyond a set of (ap- proximately) ranked demonstrations in order to infer high-quality reward functions from a set of potentially poor demonstrations. When combined with deep reinforcement learning, T-REX outperforms state-of-the-art imitation learning and IRL methods on multiple Atari and MuJoCo bench- mark tasks and achieves performance that is often more than twice the performance of the best demonstration. We also demonstrate that T-REX is robust to ranking noise and can accurately extrapolate intention by simply watching a learner noisily improve at a task over time.”
In the abstract you can read: “For sophisticated reinforcement learning (RL) systems to interact usefully with real-world environments, we need to communicate complex goals to these systems. In this work, we explore goals defined in terms of (non-expert) human preferences between pairs of trajectory segments. We show that this approach can effectively solve complex RL tasks without access to the reward function, including Atari games and simulated robot locomotion, while providing feedback on less than one percent of our agent’s interactions with the environment. This reduces the cost of human oversight far enough that it can be practically applied to state-of-the-art RL systems. To demonstrate the flexibility of our approach, we show that we can successfully train complex novel behaviors with about an hour of human time. These behaviors and environments are considerably more complex than any that have been previously learned from human feedback.
In the abstract you can read: “Conceptual abstraction and analogy-making are key abilities underlying humans’ abilities to learn, reason, and robustly adapt their knowledge to new domains. Despite of a long history of research on constructing AI systems with these abilities, no current AI system is anywhere close to a capability of forming humanlike abstractions or analogies. This paper reviews the advantages and limitations of several approaches toward this goal, including symbolic methods, deep learning, and probabilistic program induction. The paper concludes with several proposals for designing challenge tasks and evaluation measures in order to make quantifiable and generalizable progress
In the abstract you can read: “Since its beginning in the 1950s, the field of artificial intelligence has cycled several times between periods of optimistic predictions and massive investment (“AI spring”) and periods of disappointment, loss of confidence, and reduced funding (“AI winter”). Even with today’s seemingly fast pace of AI breakthroughs, the development of long-promised technologies such as self-driving cars, housekeeping robots, and conversational companions has turned out to be much harder than many people expected. One reason for these repeating cycles is our limited understanding of the nature and complexity of intelligence itself. In this paper I describe four fallacies in common assumptions made by AI researchers, which can lead to overconfident predictions about the field. I conclude by discussing the open questions spurred by these fallacies, including the age-old challenge of imbuing machines with humanlike common sense.”
[] Stuart Russell, (2019), Human Compatible: AI and the Problem of Control, Penguin books, Allen Lane; 1. Edition (8. Oktober 2019)
In the preface you can read: “This book is about the past , present , and future of our attempt to understand and create intelligence . This matters , not because AI is rapidly becoming a pervasive aspect of the present but because it is the dominant technology of the future . The world’s great powers are waking up to this fact , and the world’s largest corporations have known it for some time . We cannot predict exactly how the technology will develop or on what timeline . Nevertheless , we must plan for the possibility that machines will far exceed the human capacity for decision making in the real world . What then ? Everything civilization has to offer is the product of our intelligence ; gaining access to considerably greater intelligence would be the biggest event in human history . The purpose of the book is to explain why it might be the last event in human history and how to make sure that it is not .”
[] David Adkins, Bilal Alsallakh, Adeel Cheema, Narine Kokhlikyan, Emily McReynolds, Pushkar Mishra, Chavez Procope, Jeremy Sawruk, Erin Wang, Polina Zvyagina, (2022), Method Cards for Prescriptive Machine-Learning Transparency, 2022 IEEE/ACM 1st International Conference on AI Engineering – Software Engineering for AI (CAIN), CAIN’22, May 16–24, 2022, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, pp. 90 – 100, Association for Computing Machinery, ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-9275-4/22/05, New York, NY, USA, https://doi.org/10.1145/3522664.3528600
In the abstract you can read: “Specialized documentation techniques have been developed to communicate key facts about machine-learning (ML) systems and the datasets and models they rely on. Techniques such as Datasheets, AI FactSheets, and Model Cards have taken a mainly descriptive approach, providing various details about the system components. While the above information is essential for product developers and external experts to assess whether the ML system meets their requirements, other stakeholders might find it less actionable. In particular, ML engineers need guidance on how to mitigate po- tential shortcomings in order to fix bugs or improve the system’s performance. We propose a documentation artifact that aims to provide such guidance in a prescriptive way. Our proposal, called Method Cards, aims to increase the transparency and reproducibil- ity of ML systems by allowing stakeholders to reproduce the models, understand the rationale behind their designs, and introduce adap- tations in an informed way. We showcase our proposal with an example in small object detection, and demonstrate how Method Cards can communicate key considerations that help increase the transparency and reproducibility of the detection model. We fur- ther highlight avenues for improving the user experience of ML engineers based on Method Cards.”
[] John H. Miller, (2022), Ex Machina: Coevolving Machines and the Origins of the Social Universe, The SFI Press Scholars Series, 410 pages Paperback ISBN: 978-1947864429 , DOI: 10.37911/9781947864429
In the announcement of the book you can read: “If we could rewind the tape of the Earth’s deep history back to the beginning and start the world anew—would social behavior arise yet again? While the study of origins is foundational to many scientific fields, such as physics and biology, it has rarely been pursued in the social sciences. Yet knowledge of something’s origins often gives us new insights into the present. In Ex Machina, John H. Miller introduces a methodology for exploring systems of adaptive, interacting, choice-making agents, and uses this approach to identify conditions sufficient for the emergence of social behavior. Miller combines ideas from biology, computation, game theory, and the social sciences to evolve a set of interacting automata from asocial to social behavior. Readers will learn how systems of simple adaptive agents—seemingly locked into an asocial morass—can be rapidly transformed into a bountiful social world driven only by a series of small evolutionary changes. Such unexpected revolutions by evolution may provide an important clue to the emergence of social life.”
In the abstract you can read: “Analyzing the spatial and temporal properties of information flow with a multi-century perspective could illuminate the sustainability of human resource-use strategies. This paper uses historical and archaeological datasets to assess how spatial, temporal, cognitive, and cultural limitations impact the generation and flow of information about ecosystems within past societies, and thus lead to tradeoffs in sustainable practices. While it is well understood that conflicting priorities can inhibit successful outcomes, case studies from Eastern Polynesia, the North Atlantic, and the American Southwest suggest that imperfect information can also be a major impediment to sustainability. We formally develop a conceptual model of Environmental Information Flow and Perception (EnIFPe) to examine the scale of information flow to a society and the quality of the information needed to promote sustainable coupled natural-human systems. In our case studies, we assess key aspects of information flow by focusing on food web relationships and nutrient flows in socio-ecological systems, as well as the life cycles, population dynamics, and seasonal rhythms of organisms, the patterns and timing of species’ migration, and the trajectories of human-induced environmental change. We argue that the spatial and temporal dimensions of human environments shape society’s ability to wield information, while acknowledging that varied cultural factors also focus a society’s ability to act on such information. Our analyses demonstrate the analytical importance of completed experiments from the past, and their utility for contemporary debates concerning managing imperfect information and addressing conflicting priorities in modern environmental management and resource use.”
This text is part of a philosophy of science analysis of the case of the oksimo software (oksimo.com). A specification of the oksimo software from an engineering point of view can be found in four consecutive posts dedicated to the HMI-Analysis for this software.
POPPERs POSITION IN THE CHAPTERS 1-17
In my reading of the chapters 1-17 of Popper’s The Logic of Scientific Discovery [1] I see the following three main concepts which are interrelated: (i) the concept of a scientific theory, (ii) the point of view of a meta-theory about scientific theories, and (iii) possible empirical interpretations of scientific theories.
Scientific Theory
A scientific theory is according to Popper a collection of universal statements AX, accompanied by a concept of logical inference ⊢, which allows the deduction of a certain theorem t if one makes some additional concrete assumptions H.
Example: Theory T1 = <AX1,⊢>
AX1= {Birds can fly}
H1= {Peter is a bird}
⊢: Peter can fly
Because there exists a concrete object which is classified as a bird and this concrete bird with the name ‘Peter’ can fly one can infer that the universal statement could be verified by this concrete bird. But the question remains open whether all observable concrete objects classifiable as birds can fly.
One could continue with observations of several hundreds of concrete birds but according to Popper this would not prove the theory T1 completelytrue. Such a procedure can only support a numerical universality understood as a conjunction of finitely many observations about concrete birds like ‘Peter can fly’ & ‘Mary can fly’ & …. &’AH2 can fly’.(cf. p.62)
The only procedure which is applicable to a universal theory according to Popper is to falsify a theory by only one observation like ‘Doxy is a bird’ and ‘Doxy cannot fly’. Then one could construct the following inference:
AX1= {Birds can fly}
H2= {Doxy is a bird, Doxy cannot fly}
⊢: ‘Doxy can fly’ & ~’Doxy can fly’
If a statement A can be inferred and simultaneously the negation ~A then this is called a logical contradiction:
{AX1, H2} ⊢‘Doxy can fly’ & ~’Doxy can fly’
In this case the set {AX1, H2} is called inconsistent.
If a set of statements is classified as inconsistent then you can derive from this set everything. In this case you cannot any more distinguish between true or false statements.
Thus while the increase of the number of confirmed observations can only increase the trust in the axioms of a scientific theory T without enabling an absolute proof a falsification of a theory T can destroy the ability of this theory to distinguish between true and false statements.
Another idea associated with this structure of a scientific theory is that the universal statements using universal concepts are strictly speaking speculative ideas which deserve some faith that these concepts will be provable every time one will try it.(cf. p.33, 63)
Meta Theory, Logic of Scientific Discovery, Philosophy of Science
Talking about scientific theories has at least two aspects: scientific theories as objects and those who talk about these objects.
Those who talk about are usually Philosophers of Science which are only a special kind of Philosophers, e.g. a person like Popper.
Reading the text of Popper one can identify the following elements which seem to be important to describe scientific theories in a more broader framework:
A scientific theory from a point of view of Philosophy of Science represents a structure like the following one (minimal version):
MT=<S, A[μ], E, L, AX, ⊢, ET, E+, E-, true, false, contradiction, inconsistent>
In a shared empirical situation S there are some human actors A as experts producing expressions E of some language L. Based on their built-in adaptive meaning function μ the human actors A can relate properties of the situation S with expressions E of L. Those expressions E which are considered to be observable and classified to be true are called true expressions E+, others are called false expressions E-. Both sets of expressions are true subsets of E: E+ ⊂ E and E- ⊂ E. Additionally the experts can define some special set of expressions called axioms AX which are universal statements which allow the logical derivation of expressions called theorems of the theory T ET which are called logically true. If one combines the set of axioms AX with some set of empirically true expressions E+ as {AX, E+} then one can logically derive either only expressions which are logically true and as well empirically true, or one can derive logically true expressions which are empirically true and empirically false at the same time, see the example from the paragraph before:
{AX1, H2} ⊢‘Doxy can fly’ & ~’Doxy can fly’
Such a case of a logically derived contradiction A and ~A tells about the set of axioms AX unified with the empirical true expressions that this unified set confronted with the known true empirical expressions is becoming inconsistent: the axioms AX unified with true empirical expressions can not distinguish between true and false expressions.
Popper gives some general requirements for the axioms of a theory (cf. p.71):
Axioms must be free from contradiction.
The axioms must be independent , i.e . they must not contain any axiom deducible from the remaining axioms.
The axioms should be sufficient for the deduction of all statements belonging to the theory which is to be axiomatized.
While the requirements (1) and (2) are purely logical and can be proved directly is the requirement (3) different: to know whether the theory covers all statements which are intended by the experts as the subject area is presupposing that all aspects of an empirical environment are already know. In the case of true empirical theories this seems not to be plausible. Rather we have to assume an open process which generates some hypothetical universal expressions which ideally will not be falsified but if so, then the theory has to be adapted to the new insights.
Empirical Interpretation(s)
Popper assumes that the universal statements of scientific theories are linguistic representations, and this means they are systems of signs or symbols. (cf. p.60) Expressions as such have no meaning. Meaning comes into play only if the human actors are using their built-in meaning function and set up a coordinated meaning function which allows all participating experts to map properties of the empirical situation S into the used expressions as E+ (expressions classified as being actually true), or E- (expressions classified as being actually false) or AX (expressions having an abstract meaning space which can become true or false depending from the activated meaning function).
Examples:
Two human actors in a situation S agree about the fact, that there is ‘something’ which they classify as a ‘bird’. Thus someone could say ‘There is something which is a bird’ or ‘There is some bird’ or ‘There is a bird’. If there are two somethings which are ‘understood’ as being a bird then they could say ‘There are two birds’ or ‘There is a blue bird’ (If the one has the color ‘blue’) and ‘There is a red bird’ or ‘There are two birds. The one is blue and the other is red’. This shows that human actors can relate their ‘concrete perceptions’ with more abstract concepts and can map these concepts into expressions. According to Popper in this way ‘bottom-up’ only numerical universal concepts can be constructed. But logically there are only two cases: concrete (one) or abstract (more than one). To say that there is a ‘something’ or to say there is a ‘bird’ establishes a general concept which is independent from the number of its possible instances.
These concrete somethings each classified as a ‘bird’ can ‘move’ from one position to another by ‘walking’ or by ‘flying’. While ‘walking’ they are changing the position connected to the ‘ground’ while during ‘flying’ they ‘go up in the air’. If a human actor throws a stone up in the air the stone will come back to the ground. A bird which is going up in the air can stay there and move around in the air for a long while. Thus ‘flying’ is different to ‘throwing something’ up in the air.
The expression ‘A bird can fly’ understood as an expression which can be connected to the daily experience of bird-objects moving around in the air can be empirically interpreted, but only if there exists such a mapping called meaning function. Without a meaning function the expression ‘A bird can fly’ has no meaning as such.
To use other expressions like ‘X can fly’ or ‘A bird can Y’ or ‘Y(X)’ they have the same fate: without a meaning function they have no meaning, but associated with a meaning function they can be interpreted. For instance saying the the form of the expression ‘Y(X)’ shall be interpreted as ‘Predicate(Object)’ and that a possible ‘instance’ for a predicate could be ‘Can Fly’ and for an object ‘a bird’ then we could get ‘Can Fly(a Bird)’ translated as ‘The object ‘a Bird’ has the property ‘can fly” or shortly ‘A Bird can fly’. This usually would be used as a possible candidate for the daily meaning function which relates this expression to those somethings which can move up in the air.
Axioms and Empirical Interpretations
The basic idea with a system of axioms AX is — according to Popper — that the axioms as universal expressions represent a system of equations where the general terms should be able to be substituted by certain values. The set of admissible values is different from the set of inadmissible values. The relation between those values which can be substituted for the terms is called satisfaction: the values satisfy the terms with regard to the relations! And Popper introduces the term ‘model‘ for that set of admissible terms which can satisfy the equations.(cf. p.72f)
But Popper has difficulties with an axiomatic system interpreted as a system of equations since it cannot be refuted by the falsification of its consequences ; for these too must be analytic.(cf. p.73) His main problem with axioms is, that “the concepts which are to be used in the axiomatic system should be universal names, which cannot be defined by empirical indications, pointing, etc . They can be defined if at all only explicitly, with the help of other universal names; otherwise they can only be left undefined. That some universal names should remain undefined is therefore quite unavoidable; and herein lies the difficulty…” (p.74)
On the other hand Popper knows that “…it is usually possible for the primitive concepts of an axiomatic system such as geometry to be correlated with, or interpreted by, the concepts of another system , e.g . physics …. In such cases it may be possible to define the fundamental concepts of the new system with the help of concepts which were originally used in some of the old systems .”(p.75)
But the translation of the expressions of one system (geometry) in the expressions of another system (physics) does not necessarily solve his problem of the non-empirical character of universal terms. Especially physics is using also universal or abstract terms which as such have no meaning. To verify or falsify physical theories one has to show how the abstract terms of physics can be related to observable matters which can be decided to be true or not.
Thus the argument goes back to the primary problem of Popper that universal names cannot not be directly be interpreted in an empirically decidable way.
As the preceding examples (1) – (4) do show for human actors it is no principal problem to relate any kind of abstract expressions to some concrete real matters. The solution to the problem is given by the fact that expressions E of some language L never will be used in isolation! The usage of expressions is always connected to human actors using expressions as part of a language L which consists together with the set of possible expressions E also with the built-in meaning function μ which can map expressions into internal structures IS which are related to perceptions of the surrounding empirical situation S. Although these internal structures are processed internally in highly complex manners and are — as we know today — no 1-to-1 mappings of the surrounding empirical situation S, they are related to S and therefore every kind of expressions — even those with so-called abstract or universal concepts — can be mapped into something real if the human actors agree about such mappings!
Example:
Lets us have a look to another example.
If we take the system of axioms AX as the following schema: AX= {a+b=c}. This schema as such has no clear meaning. But if the experts interpret it as an operation ‘+’ with some arguments as part of a math theory then one can construct a simple (partial) model m as follows: m={<1,2,3>, <2,3,5>}. The values are again given as a set of symbols which as such must not ave a meaning but in common usage they will be interpreted as sets of numbers which can satisfy the general concept of the equation. In this secondary interpretation m is becoming a logically true (partial) model for the axiom Ax, whose empirical meaning is still unclear.
It is conceivable that one is using this formalism to describe empirical facts like the description of a group of humans collecting some objects. Different people are bringing objects; the individual contributions will be reported on a sheet of paper and at the same time they put their objects in some box. Sometimes someone is looking to the box and he will count the objects of the box. If it has been noted that A brought 1 egg and B brought 2 eggs then there should according to the theory be 3 eggs in the box. But perhaps only 2 could be found. Then there would be a difference between the logically derivedforecast of the theory 1+2 = 3 and the empirically measured value 1+2 = 2. If one would define all examples of measurement a+b=c’ as contradiction in that case where we assume a+b=c as theoretically given and c’ ≠ c, then we would have with ‘1+2 = 3′ & ~’1+2 = 3’ a logically derived contradiction which leads to the inconsistency of the assumed system. But in reality the usual reaction of the counting person would not be to declare the system inconsistent but rather to suggest that some unknown actor has taken against the agreed rules one egg from the box. To prove his suggestion he had to find this unknown actor and to show that he has taken the egg … perhaps not a simple task … But what will the next authority do: will the authority belief the suggestion of the counting person or will the authority blame the counter that eventually he himself has taken the missing egg? But would this make sense? Why should the counter write the notes how many eggs have been delivered to make a difference visible? …
Thus to interpret some abstract expression with regard to some observable reality is not a principal problem, but it can eventually be unsolvable by purely practical reasons, leaving questions of empirical soundness open.
SOURCES
[1] Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, First published 1935 in German as Logik der Forschung, then 1959 in English by Basic Books, New York (more editions have been published later; I am using the eBook version of Routledge (2002))
This text is part of a philosophy of science analysis of the case of the oksimo software (oksimo.com). A specification of the oksimo software from an engineering point of view can be found in four consecutive posts dedicated to the HMI-Analysis for this software.
DERIVATION
In formal logic exists the concept of logical derivation ‘⊢’ written as
E ⊢X e
saying that one can get the expression e out of the set of expressions E by applying the rules X.
In the oksimo case we have sets of expressions ES to represent either a given starting state S or to represent as EV a given vision V. Furthermore we have change rules X operating on sets of expressions and we can derive sequences of states of expressions <E1, E2, …, En> by applying the change rules X with the aid of a simulator Σ onto these expressions written as
ES ⊢Σ,X <E1, E2, …, En>
Thus given an initial set of expressions ES one can derive a whole sequence of expression sets Ei by applying the change rules.
While all individual expressions of the start set ES are by assumption classified as true it holds for the derived sets of expressions Ei that these expressions are correct with regard to the used change rulesX but whether these sets of expressions are also true with regard to a given situation Si considered as a possible future state Sfutihas to be proved separately! The reason for this unclear status results from the fact that the change rules X represent changes which the authoring experts consider as possible changes which they want to apply but they cannot guarantee the empirical validity for all upcoming times only by thinking. This implicit uncertainty can be handled a little bit with the probability factor π of an individual change rule. The different degrees of certainty in the application of a change rule can give an approximation of this uncertainty. Thus as longer the chain of derivations is becoming as lower the assumed probability will develop.
SIMPLE OKSIMO THEORY [TOKSIMO]
Thus if we have some human actors Ahum, an environment ENV, some starting situation S as part of the environment ENV, a first set of expressions ES representing only true expressions with regard to the starting situation S, a set of elaborated change rules X, and a simulator Σ then one can define a simple oksimo-like theory Toksimo as follows:
The human actors can describe a given situation S as part of an environment ENV as a set of expressions ES which can be proved with makedecidable() as true. By defining a set of change rules X and a simulator Σ one can define a formal derivation relation ⊢Σ,X which allows the derivation of a sequence of sets of expressions <E1, E2, …, En> written as
ES ⊢T,Σ,X <E1, E2, …, En>
While the truth of the first set of expressions ES has been proved in the beginning, the truth of the derived sets of expressions has to be shown explicitly for each set Ei separately. Given is only the formal correctness of the derived expressions according to the change rules X and the working of the simulator.
VALIDADED SIMPLE OKSIMO THEORY [TOKSIMO.V]
One can extend the simple oksimo theory TOKSIMO to a biased oksimo theory TOKSIMO.V if one includes in the theory a set of vision expressions EV. Vision expressions can describe a possible situation in the future Sfut which is declared as a goal to be reached. With a given vision document EV the simulator can check for every new derived set of expressions Ei to which degree the individual expressions e of the set of vision expressions EV are already reached.
FROM THEORY TO ENGINEERING
But one has to keep in mind that the purely formal achievement of a given vision document EV does not imply that the corresponding situation Sfut is a real situation. The corresponding situation Sfut is first of all only an idea in the mind of the experts. To transfer this idea into the real environment as a real situation is a process on its own known as engineering.
This text is part of a philosophy of science analysis of the case of the oksimo software (oksimo.com). A specification of the oksimo software from an engineering point of view can be found in four consecutive posts dedicated to the HMI-Analysis for this software.
STARTING WITH SOMETHING ‘REAL’
A basic idea of the oksimo behavior space is to bring together differenthuman actors, let them share their knowledge and experience of some real part of their world and then they are invited to think about, how one can improve this part.
What sounds so common — some real part of their world — isn’t necessarily easy to define.
As has been discussed in the preceding post to make language expressions decidable this is only possible if certain practical requirements are fulfilled. The ‘practical recipe’
makedecidable : S x Ahum x E —> E x {true, false}
given in the preceding post claims that you — if you want to know whether an expression E is concrete and can be classified as ‘true’ or ‘false’ — have to ask a human actor Ahum , which is part of the same concrete situation S as you, and he/ she should confirm or disclaim whether the expression E can be interpreted as being ‘true’ or ‘false’ in this situation S.
Usually, if there is a real concrete situation S with you and some other human actor A, then you both will have a perception of the situation, you will both have internal abstraction processes with abstract states, you will have mappings from such abstracted states into some expressions of your internal language Lint and you and the other human actor A can exchange external expressions corresponding to the inner expressions and thereby corresponding to the internal abstracted states of the situation S. Even if the used language expressions E — like for instance ‘There is a white wooden table‘ — will contain abstract expressions/ universal expressions like ‘white’, ‘wooden’, ‘table’, even then you and the other human actor will be able to decide whether there are properties of the concrete situation which are fitting as accepted instances the universal parts of the language expression ‘There is a white wooden table‘.
Thus being in a real situation S with the other human actors enables usually all participants of the situation to decide language expressions which are related to the situation.
But what consequences does it have if you are somehow abroad, if you are not actually part of the situation S? Usually — if you are hearing or reading an expression like ‘There is a white wooden table‘ — you will be able to get an idea of the intended meaning only by your learned meaning function φ which maps the external expression into an internal expression and further maps the internal expression into the learned abstracted states. While the expressions ‘white’ and ‘wooden’ are perhaps rather ‘clear’ the expression ‘table’ is today associated with many, many different possible concrete matters and only by hearing or reading it is not possible to decide which of all these are the intended concrete matter. Thus although if you would be able to decided in the real situation S which of these many possible instances are given in the real situation, with the expression only disconnected from the situation, you are not able to decide whether the expression is true or not. Thus the expression has the cognitive status that it perhaps can be true but actually you cannot decide.
REALITY SUPPORTERS
Between the two cases (i) being part of he real situation S or (ii) being disconnected from the real situation S there are many variants of situations which can be understood as giving some additional support to decide whether an expression E is rather true or not.
The main weakness for not being able to decide is the lack of hints to narrow down the set of possible interpretations of learned meanings by counter examples. Thus while a human actor could have learned that the expression ‘table’ can be associated with for instance 25 different concrete matters, then he/ she needs some hints/ clues which of these possibilities can be ruled out and thereby the actor could narrow down the set of possible learned meanings to then only for instance left possibly 5 of 25.
While the real situation S can not be send along with the expression it is possible to send for example a drawing of the situation S or a photo. If properties are involved which deserve different senses like smelling or hearing or touching or … then a photo would not suffice.
Thus to narrow down the possible interpretations of an expression for someone who is not part of the situation it can be of help to give additional ‘clues’ if possible, but this is not always possible and moreover it is always more or less incomplete.
The analysis of the main application scenario revealed that classical
logical inference concepts are insufficient for the assistance of human ac-
tors during shared planning. It turned out that the simulator has to be
understood as a real learning artificial actor which has to gain the required
knowledge during the process.
In this section several case studies will be presented. It will be shown, how the DAAI paradigm can be applied to many different contexts . Since the original version of the DAAI-Theory in Jan 18, 2020 the concept has been further developed centering around the concept of a Collective Man-Machine Intelligence [CM:MI] to address now any kinds of experts for any kind of simulation-based development, testing and gaming. Additionally the concept now can be associated with any kind of embedded algorithmic intelligence [EAI] (different to the mainstream concept ‘artificial intelligence’). The new concept can be used with every normal language; no need for any special programming language! Go back to the overall framework.
COLLECTION OF PAPERS
There exists only a loosely order between the different papers due to the character of this elaboration process: generally this is an experimental philosophical process. HMI Analysis applied for the CM:MI paradigm.
FROM DAAI to GCA. Turning Engineering into Generative Cultural Anthropology. This paper gives an outline how one can map the DAAI paradigm directly into the GCA paradigm (April-19,2020): case1-daai-gca-v1
A first GCA open research project [GCA-OR No.1]. This paper outlines a first open research project using the GCA. This will be the framework for the first implementations (May-5, 2020): GCAOR-v0-1
Engineering and Society. A Case Study for the DAAI Paradigm – Introduction. This paper illustrates important aspects of a cultural process looking to the acting actors where certain groups of people (experts of different kinds) can realize the generation, the exploration, and the testing of dynamical models as part of a surrounding society. Engineering is clearly not separated from society (April-9, 2020): case1-population-start-part0-v1
Bootstrapping some Citizens. This paper clarifies the set of general assumptions which can and which should be presupposed for every kind of a real world dynamical model (April-4, 2020): case1-population-start-v1-1
Hybrid Simulation Game Environment [HSGE]. This paper outlines the simulation environment by combing a usual web-conference tool with an interactive web-page by our own (23.May 2020): HSGE-v2 (May-5, 2020): HSGE-v0-1
The Observer-World Framework. This paper describes the foundations of any kind of observer-based modeling or theory construction.(July 16, 2020)
The context for this text is the whole block dedicated to the AAI (Actor-Actor Interaction) paradigm. The aim of this text is to give the big picture of all dimensions and components of this subject as it shows up during April 2019.
The first dimension introduced is the historical dimension, because this allows a first orientation in the course of events which lead to the actual situation. It starts with the early days of real computers in the thirties and forties of the 20 century.
The second dimension is the engineering dimension which describes the special view within which we are looking onto the overall topic of interactions between human persons and computers (or machines or technology or society). We are interested how to transform a given problem into a valuable solution in a methodological sound way called engineering.
The third dimension is the whole of society because engineering happens always as some process within a society. Society provides the resources which can be used and spends the preferences (values) what is understood as ‘valuable’, as ‘good’.
The fourth dimension is Philosophy as that kind of thinking which takes everything into account which can be thought and within thinking Philosophy clarifies conditions of thinking, possible tools of thinking and has to clarify when some symbolic expression becomes true.
HISTORY
In history we are looking back in the course of events. And this looking back is in a first step guided by the concepts of HCI (Human-Computer Interface) and HMI (Human-Machine Interaction).
It is an interesting phenomenon how the original focus of the interface between human persons and the early computers shifted to the more general picture of interaction because the computer as machine developed rapidly on account of the rapid development of the enabling hardware (HW) the enabling software (SW).
Within the general framework of hardware and software the so-called artificial intelligence (AI) developed first as a sub-topic on its own. Since the last 10 – 20 years it became in a way productive that it now seems to become a normal part of every kind of software. Software and smart software seem to be interchangeable. Thus the new wording of augmented or collective intelligence is emerging intending to bridge the possible gap between humans with their human intelligence and machine intelligence. There is some motivation from the side of society not to allow the impression that the smart (intelligent) machines will replace some day the humans. Instead one is propagating the vision of a new collective shape of intelligence where human and machine intelligence allows a symbiosis where each side gives hist best and receives a maximum in a win-win situation.
What is revealing about the actual situation is the fact that the mainstream is always talking about intelligence but not seriously about learning! Intelligence is by its roots a static concept representing some capabilities at a certain point of time, while learning is the more general dynamic concept that a system can change its behavior depending from actual external stimuli as well as internal states. And such a change includes real changes of some of its internal states. Intelligence does not communicate this dynamics! The most demanding aspect of learning is the need for preferences. Without preferences learning is impossible. Today machine learning is a very weak example of learning because the question of preferences is not a real topic there. One assumes that some reward is available, but one does not really investigate this topic. The rare research trying to do this job is stating that there is not the faintest idea around how a general continuous learning could happen. Human society is of no help for this problem while human societies have a clash of many, often opposite, values, and they have no commonly accepted view how to improve this situation.
ENGINEERING
Engineering is the art and the science to transform a given problem into a valuable and working solution. What is valuable decides the surrounding enabling society and this judgment can change during the course of time. Whether some solution is judged to be working can change during the course of time too but the criteria used for this judgment are more stable because of their adherence to concrete capabilities of technical solutions.
While engineering was and is always a kind of an art and needs such aspects like creativity, innovation, intuition etc. it is also and as far as possible a procedure driven by defined methods how to do things, and these methods are as far as possible backed up by scientific theories. The real engineer therefore synthesizes art, technology and science in a unique way which can not completely be learned in the schools.
In the past as well as in the present engineering has to happen in teams of many, often many thousands or even more, people which coordinate their brains by communication which enables in the individual brains some kind of understanding, of emerging world pictures, which in turn guide the perception, the decisions, and the concrete behavior of everybody. And these cognitive processes are embedded — in every individual team member — in mixtures of desires, emotions, as well as motivations, which can support the cognitive processes or obstruct them. Therefore an optimal result can only be reached if the communication serves all necessary cognitive processes and the interactions between the team members enable the necessary constructive desires, emotions, and motivations.
If an engineering process is done by a small group of dedicated experts — usually triggered by the given problem of an individual stakeholder — this can work well for many situations. It has the flavor of a so-called top-down approach. If the engineering deals with states of affairs where different kinds of people, citizens of some town etc. are affected by the results of such a process, the restriction to a small group of experts can become highly counterproductive. In those cases of a widespread interest it seems promising to include representatives of all the involved persons into the executing team to recognize their experiences and their kinds of preferences. This has to be done in a way which is understandable and appreciative, showing esteem for the others. This manner of extending the team of usual experts by situative experts can be termed bottom-up approach. In this usage of the term bottom-up this is not the opposite to top-down but is reflecting the extend in which members of a society are included insofar they are affected by the results of a process.
SOCIETY
Societies in the past and the present occur in a great variety of value systems, organizational structures, systems of power etc. Engineering processes within a society are depending completely on the available resources of a society and of its value systems.
The population dynamics, the needs and wishes of the people, the real territories, the climate, housing, traffic, and many different things are constantly producing demands to be solved if life shall be able and continue during the course of time.
The self-understanding and the self-management of societies is crucial for their ability to used engineering to improve life. This deserves communication and education to a sufficient extend, appropriate public rules of management, otherwise the necessary understanding and the freedom to act is lacking to use engineering in the right way.
PHILOSOPHY
Without communication no common constructive process can happen. Communication happens according to many implicit rules compressed in the formula who when can speak how about what with whom etc. Communication enables cognitive processes of for instance understanding, explanations, lines of arguments. Especially important for survival is the ability to make true descriptions and the ability to decide whether a statement is true or not. Without this basic ability communication will break down, coordination will break down, life will break down.
The basic discipline to clarify the rules and conditions of true communication, of cognition in general, is called Philosophy. All the more modern empirical disciplines are specializations of the general scope of Philosophy and it is Philosophy which integrates all the special disciplines in one, coherent framework (this is the ideal; actually we are far from this ideal).
Thus to describe the process of engineering driven by different kinds of actors which are coordinating themselves by communication is primarily the task of philosophy with all their sub-disciplines.
Thus some of the topics of Philosophy are language, text, theory, verification of a theory, functions within theories as algorithms, computation in general, inferences of true statements from given theories, and the like.
In this text I apply Philosophy as far as necessary. Especially I am introducing a new process model extending the classical systems engineering approach by including the driving actors explicitly in the formal representation of the process. Learning machines are included as standard tools to improve human thinking and communication. You can name this Augmented Social Learning Systems (ASLS). Compared to the wording Augmented Intelligence (AI) (as used for instance by the IBM marketing) the ASLS concept stresses that the primary point of reference are the biological systems which created and create machine intelligence as a new tool to enhance biological intelligence as part of biological learning systems. Compared to the wording Collective Intelligence (CI) (as propagated by the MIT, especially by Thomas W.Malone and colleagues) the spirit of the CI concept seems to be similar, but perhaps only a weak similarity.
Last change: 28.February 2019 (Several corrections)
CONTEXT
An overview to the enhanced AAI theory version 2 you can find here. In this post we talk about the special topic how to proceed in a bottom-up approach.
BOTTOM-UP: THE GENERAL BLUEPRINT
Figure 1: Outline of the process how to generate an AS with a bottom-up approach
As the introductory figure shows it is assumed here that there is a collection of citizens and experts which offer their individual knowledge, experiences, and skills to ‘put them on the table’ challenged by a given problem P.
This knowledge is in the beginning not structured. The first step in the direction of an actor story (AS) is to analyze the different contributions in a way which shows distinguishable elements with properties and relations. Such a set of first ‘objects’ and ‘relations’ characterizes a set of facts which define a ‘situation’ or a ‘state’ as a collection of ‘facts’. Such a situation/ state can also be understood as a first simple ‘model‘ as response to a given problem. A model is as such ‘static‘; it describes what ‘is’ at a certain point of ‘time’.
In a next step the group has to identify possible ‘changes‘ which can be associated with at least one fact. There can be many possible changes which eventually need different durations to come into effect. These effects can happen as ‘exclusive alternatives’ or in ‘parallel’. Apply the possible changes to a situation generates ‘successors’ to the actual situation. A sequence of situations generated by applied changes is usually called a ‘simulation‘.
If one allows the interaction between real actors with a simulation by associating a real actor to one of the actors ‘inside the simulation’ one is turning the simulation into an ‘interactive simulation‘ which represents basically a ‘computer game‘ (short: ‘egame‘).
One can use interactive simulations e.g. to (i) learn about the dynamics of a model, to (ii) test the assumptions of a model, to (iii) test the knowledge and skills of the real actors.
Making new experiences with a simulation allows a continuous improvement of the model and its change rules.
Additionally one can include more citizens and experts into this process and one can use available knowledge from databases and libraries.
EPISTEMOLOGY OF CONCEPTS
Fig.2: Epistemology of concepts used in an AAI Analysis process
As outlined in the preceding section about the blueprint of a bottom-up process there will be a heavy usage of concepts to describe state of affairs.
The literature about this topic in philosophy as well as many scientific disciplines is overwhelmingly and therefore this small text here can only be a ‘pointer’ into a complex topic. Nevertheless I will use exactly this pointer to explore this topic further.
While the literature is mainly dealing with more or less specific partial models, I am trying here to point out a very general framework which fits to a more genera philosophical — especially epistemological — view as well as gives respect to many results of scientific disciplines.
The main dimensions here are (i) the outside external empirical world, which connects via sensors to the (ii) internal body, especially the brain, which works largely ‘unconscious‘, and then (iii) the ‘conscious‘ part of he brain.
The most important relationship between the ‘conscious’ and the ‘unconscious’ part of the brain is the ability of the unconscious brain to transform automatically incoming concrete sens-experiences into more ‘abstract’ structures, which have at least three sub-dimensions: (i) different concrete material, (ii) a sub-set of extracted common properties, (iii) different sets of occurring contexts associated with the different subsets. This enables the brain to extract only a ‘few’ abstract structures (= abstract concepts) to deal with ‘many’ concrete events. Thus the abstract concept ‘chair’ can cover many different concrete chairs which have only a few properties in common. Additionally the chairs can occur in different ‘contexts’ associating them with different ‘relations’ which can specify possible different ‘usages’ of the concept ‘chair’.
Thus, if the actor perceives something which ‘matches’ some ‘known’ concept then the actor is not only conscious about the empirical concrete phenomenon but also simultaneously about the abstract concept which will automatically be activated. ‘Immediately’ the actor ‘knows’ that this empirical something is e.g. a ‘chair’. Concrete: this concrete something is matching an abstract concept ‘chair’ which can as such cover many other concrete things too which can be as concrete somethings partially different from another concrete something.
From this follows an interesting side effect: while an actor can easily decide, whether a concrete something is there (“it is the case, that” = “it is true”) or not (“it is not the case, that” = “it isnot true” = “it is false”), an actor can not directly decide whether an abstract concept like ‘chair’ as such is ‘true’ in the sense, that the concept ‘as a whole’ corresponds to concrete empirical occurrences. This depends from the fact that an abstract concept like ‘chair’ can match with a nearly infinite set of possible concrete somethings which are called ‘possible instances’ of the abstract concept. But a human actor can directly ‘check’ only a ‘few’ concrete somethings. Therefore the usage of abstract concepts like ‘chair’, ‘house’, ‘bottle’ etc. implies inherently an ‘open set’ of ‘possible’ concrete exemplars and therefor is the usage of such concepts necessarily a ‘hypothetical’ usage. Because we can ‘in principle’ check the real extensions of these abstract concepts in everyday life as long there is the ‘freedom’ to do such checks, we are losing the ‘truth’ of our concepts and thereby the basis for a realistic cooperation, if this ‘freedom of checking’ is not possible.
If some incoming perception is ‘not yet known’, because nothing given in the unconsciousness does ‘match’, it is in a basic sens ‘new’ and the brain will automatically generate a ‘new concept’.
THE DIMENSION OF MEANING
In Figure 2 one can find two other components: the ‘meaning relation’ which maps concepts into ‘language expression’.
Language expressions inside the brain correspond to a diversity of visual, auditory, tactile or other empirical event sequences, which are in use for communicative acts.
These language expressions are usually not ‘isolated structures’ but are embedded in relations which map the expression structures to conceptual structures including the different substantiations of the abstract concepts and the associated contexts. By these relations the expressions are attached to the conceptual structures which are called the ‘meaning‘ of the expressions and vice versa the expressions are called the ‘language articulation’ of the meaning structures.
As far as conceptual structures are related via meaning relations to language expressions then a perception can automatically cause the ‘activation’ of the associated language expressions, which in turn can be uttered in some way. But conceptual structures can exist (especially with children) without an available meaning relation.
When language expressions are used within a communicative act then their usage can activate in all participants of the communication the ‘learned’ concepts as their intended meanings. Heaving the meaning activated in someones ‘consciousness’ this is a real phenomenon for that actor. But from the occurrence of concepts alone does not automatically follow, that a concept is ‘backed up’ by some ‘real matter’ in the external world. Someone can utter that it is raining, in the hearer of this utterance the intended concepts can become activated, but in the outside external world no rain is happening. In this case one has to state that the utterance of the language expressions “Look, its raining” has no counterpart in the real world, therefore we call the utterance in this case ‘false‘ or ‘not true‘.
THE DIMENSION OF TIME
Fig.3: The dimension of time based on past experience and combinatoric thinking
The preceding figure 2 of the conceptual space is not yet complete. There is another important dimension based on the ability of the unconscious brain to ‘store’ certain structures in a ‘timely order’ which enables an actor — under certain conditions ! — to decide whether a certain structure X occurred in the consciousness ‘before’ or ‘after’ or ‘at the same time’ as another structure Y.
Evidently the unconscious brain is able do exactly this: (i) it can arrange the different structures under certain conditions in a ‘timely order’; (ii) it can detect ‘differences‘ between timely succeeding structures; the brain (iii) can conceptualize these changes as ‘change concepts‘ (‘rules of change’), and it can can classify different kinds of change like ‘deterministic’, ‘non-deterministic’ with different kinds of probabilities, as well as ‘arbitrary’ as in the case of ‘free learning systems‘. Free learning systems are able to behave in a ‘deterministic-like manner’, but they can also change their patterns on account of internal learning and decision processes in nearly any direction.
Based on memories of conceptual structures and derived change concepts (rules of change) the unconscious brain is able to generate different kinds of ‘possible configurations’, whose quality is depending from the degree of dependencies within the ‘generating criteria’: (i) no special restrictions; (ii) empirical restrictions; (iii) empirical restrictions for ‘upcoming states’ (if all drinkable water would be consumed, then one cannot plan any further with drinkable water).
An overview to the enhanced AAI theory version 2 you can find here. In this post we talk about the fourth chapter dealing with the epistemology of actors within an AAI analysis process.
EPISTEMOLOGY AND THE EMPIRICAL SCIENCES
Epistemology is a sub-discipline of general philosophy. While a special discipline in empirical science is defined by a certain sub-set of the real world RW by empirical measurement methods generating empirical data which can be interpreted by a formalized theory, philosophy is not restricted to a sub-field of the real world. This is important because an empirical discipline has no methods to define itself. Chemistry e.g. can define by which kinds of measurement it is gaining empirical data and it can offer different kinds of formal theories to interpret these data including inferences to forecast certain reactions given certain configurations of matters, but chemistry is not able to explain the way how a chemist is thinking, how the language works which a chemist is using etc. Thus empirical science presupposes a general framework of bodies, sensors, brains, languages etc. to be able to do a very specialized — but as such highly important — job. One can define ‘philosophy’ then as that kind of activity which tries to clarify all these conditions which are necessary to do science as well as how cognition works in the general case.
Given this one can imagine that philosophy is in principle a nearly ‘infinite’ task. To get not lost in this conceptual infinity it is recommended to start with concrete processes of communications which are oriented to generate those kinds of texts which can be shown as ‘related to parts of the empirical world’ in a decidable way. This kind of texts is here called ’empirically sound’ or ’empirically true’. It is to suppose that there will be texts for which it seems to be clear that they are empirically sound, others will appear ‘fuzzy’ for such a criterion, others even will appear without any direct relation to empirical soundness.
In empirical sciences one is using so-called empirical measurement procedures as benchmarks to decided whether one has empirical data or not, and it is commonly assumed that every ‘normal observer’ can use these data as every other ‘normal observer’. But because individual, single data have nearly no meaning on their own one needs relations, sets of relations (models) and even more complete theories, to integrate the data in a context, which allows some interpretation and some inferences for forecasting. But these relations, models, or theories can not directly be inferred from the real world. They have to be created by the observers as ‘working hypotheses’ which can fit with the data or not. And these constructions are grounded in highly complex cognitive processes which follow their own built-in rules and which are mostly not conscious. ‘Cognitive processes’ in biological systems, especially in human person, are completely generated by a brain and constitute therefore a ‘virtual world’ on their own. This cognitive virtual world is not the result of a 1-to-1 mapping from the real world into the brain states. This becomes important in that moment where the brain is mapping this virtual cognitive world into some symbolic language L. While the symbols of a language (sounds or written signs or …) as such have no meaning the brain enables a ‘coding’, a ‘mapping’ from symbolic expressions into different states of the brain. In the light’ of such encodings the symbolic expressions have some meaning. Besides the fact that different observers can have different encodings it is always an open question whether the encoded meaning of the virtual cognitive space has something to do with some part of the empirical reality. Empirical data generated by empirical measurement procedures can help to coordinate the virtual cognitive states of different observers with each other, but this coordination is not an automatic process. Empirically sound language expressions are difficult to get and therefore of a high value for the survival of mankind. To generate empirically sound formal theories is even more demanding and until today there exists no commonly accepted concept of the right format of an empirically sound theory. In an era which calls itself ‘scientific’ this is a very strange fact.
EPISTEMOLOGY OF THE AAI-EXPERTS
Applying these general considerations to the AAI experts trying to construct an actor story to describe at least one possible path from a start state to a goal state, one can pick up the different languages the AAI experts are using and asking back under which conditions these languages have some ‘meaning’ and under which conditions these meanings can be called ’empirically sound’?
In this book three different ‘modes’ of an actor story will be distinguished:
A textual mode using some ordinary everyday language, thus using spoken language (stored in an audio file) or written language as a text.
A pictorial mode using a ‘language of pictures’, possibly enhanced by fragments of texts.
A mathematical mode using graphical presentations of ‘graphs’ enhanced by symbolic expressions (text) and symbolic expressions only.
For every mode it has to be shown how an AAI expert can generate an actor story out of the virtual cognitive world of his brain and how it is possible to decided the empirical soundness of the actor story.
Integrating Engineering and the Human Factor (info@uffmm.org) eJournal uffmm.org ISSN 2567-6458
