The Computational Universe

After the lectures and the Brooks and Searle readings, I feel that AI is less likely to be created. But I admit that the image of AI for me before this class was of human-like robots or electronic beings living in a spaceship’s computers. I don’t doubt that computers will one day be able to carry on a sensible conversation with humans, but all of the talk about the technical limitations of computers has turned me into somewhat of a pessimist on AI. We already have supercomputers and deadly flying robots helping us fight our wars, but will fully conscious and aware beings – created by humans – ever fight alongside, or even replace, the soldiers? I’m beginning to think that we’ll never get there.

Brooks argues that machines are things governed by some set of rules and made up of elements that can be explained and understood with math and science. But he further argues that people are machines because they too can be described by the previous assertion. I agree with Brook’s first point, but I cannot completely agree with his second. He assumes that people act according to a set of rules - all of which are not known to humans, he adds. As far as individual organs and even systems within our bodies, this makes sense, but I don’t buy it when it comes to the human mind. This goes beyond emotions and free will, because the humans are not only capable of making choices. They are capable of acting irrationally, and this simply cannot be swept under the rug of “Brook’s Unknown Rules for Humans”.  

            Brook’s attack on Searle’s arguments, particularly his “Chinese Room”, seems a little misplaced. To me, Searle’s article outlined his technical objections to the Turing test as an appropriate test for a computer’s consciousness. He claims Searle’s use of ridicule is an untenable tactic, but isn’t Brooks doing the same?

Searle did a good job at explaining the weaknesses of the Turing test when it comes to testing whether or not a computer learns and thinks. In the end, I though that Searle’s views were too narrow (probably since the scope of the article was fairly narrow), and I found Brook’ views unsatisfactory and unconvincing. On the question of consciousness, Brook’s relies too much on our continued lack of understanding of the subject. He wants us to do what he has done: accept mediocre, vague responses to difficult questions about our own minds.

   It’s always preferable to keep things simple, and Boolean logic has done this for us. In developing his theory, George Boole came up with a system that used only three elements (not, and & or) to control relationships between characters. When manipulated, the not, and & or statements result in a clear, unambiguous answer. The conclusion is either true or false, which is expressed as a 0 for false or a 1 for true. This simplicity is great because we can express mechanical logic with so few characters. But it is important to remember that not, and & or do not mean what they commonly mean in English. Here, or means both variables need to be false to create a false answer, while and means both variables need to be true to create a true answer.
    Claude Shannon applied Boole’s theory to simplify electrical circuits, and also to use not, and & or gates to express logical computations within electrical devices. Since currents were used, true statements defined a high voltage, while false statement defined a low voltage. Computers are able to operate using this simplified logic to perform complex tasks. The not, and & or variables means you’ll need a lot of gates, but the simplicity of the operation, which is governed by logical reasoning leads to predictability and stability.  
   Clearly there are problems in applying this logic to people or animals. Behavior depends on too many factors, and they all cannot be broken down into unambiguous statements from which there is no deviance. Also, Boolean logic relies on clear true or false answers, but the Impagliazzo and Nagin reading offers a “fuzzy logic” that is less restrictive, allowing for more than just a simple negation.

Before the first lab, I didn’t think much of the Scribbler robot, and I didn’t have such high expectations for it. We probably didn’t test the full limitations of the Scribbler in the first two lab sessions, but it is clear that the robot isn’t some great machine that can do it all. However, I was surprised by its simplicity, and I was pleased at what I could get the robot to do with such a minimal understanding of robotics and computers. 

After some initial calibration problems were resolved, the robot performed simple tasks relatively well, and without a whole lot of input on my part. Just a simple test sample file or a short file I wrote made the robot do things predictable, consistently, and efficiently (in my opinion). I didn’t expect much from the Scribbler, so I have to say I was somewhat impressed by what it was able to do. Though not very accurately, the robot was able to make shapes like stars and squares. Without a ruler, I probably wouldn’t be able to have drawn an equal-sided square or star so accurately.  

The main thing that impressed me about the Scribbler was the simplicity of the written commands it needed to operate. For some of the experiments in lab 2, I initially wrote out long instructions for the robot, and I ended up cutting out steps because the robot didn’t need a lot of instructions to function. 

I thought the thing was just going to be some toy that beeped and rolled around, so it did not need to do much to impress me. But it certainly is not a precision tool, especially with calibration errors and measurement inaccuracies. I wouldn’t want it with me to defuse an IED in Ramadi, but I guess it could be programmed to keep bumping into the arty round. I don’t know much about computers or robots, so the Scribbler was a nice intro for me into these subjects.

Hello, I’m a senior with one final ST requirement to fulfill. I am in the History department, concentrating in the Middle East, and I’m writing my thesis on the civil war in Afghanistan. I have some friends serving there (and a few in Iraq), and I hope to join them with the US Army in the near future. I know Spanish, and have studied Arabic, Farsi, French, and some Pashto – so hopefully Army Special Operations will have some use for me.

I’m from a small town in East Tennessee. My father is from India, and my mother is from Mexico. I have a brother who is very good at computers. He got some type of computer degree from MIT, and he’s now in Chicago getting his architecture license. In addition to his government job, my father has a small farm, and I enjoyed working with him on it in my childhood. I like hiking, camping, and all that other outdoor garbage, but I do not like hunting, and I hate hurting animals. However, last summer, I did have to use some of my skills to destroy a groundhog colony and their tunnel system that threatened my dad’s farm (I only had to kill two before the others left).

I’m taking this class because I need a final ST requirement in order to get out of here. But I do need some additional experience with computers, because I don’t do much more than write papers, do email, and listen to music on my laptop.

Update 5.50pm 2/13/06: I have a Gateway, and I mostly use Windows.