『[English] Do AI Systems Really Possess Consciousness?』のカバーアート

[English] Do AI Systems Really Possess Consciousness?

[English] Do AI Systems Really Possess Consciousness?

無料で聴く

ポッドキャストの詳細を見る
[Preview books] [Borrow books] [Pause] This very question caused a former Google employee named Blake Lemoine to lose both his job and his reputation. You have probably read about it.In 2022, while testing one of Google's AI systems called Lamda, Blake felt that the AI was conscious. He did not stop there. Instead, he began advocating for the rights of that AI. That eventually cost him his job.Before talking about the consciousness of AI systems, let us first understand our own conscious experience. How we acquire conscious experience has long been a puzzle that troubled neuroscientists. When modern tools such as functional MRI scanners were invented, neuroscientists became capable of explaining various perceptual processes of the human brain. They could identify the precise locations in the brain responsible for specific perceptions.However, in the beginning, there was little clarity about how complex experiences, which may involve regions distributed throughout the brain, are actually realized.For example, suppose you are looking at a tree. You immediately recognize it as a particular species of tree. Neuroscientists were able to point to specific regions of the brain that recognize the leaves of the tree, its fruits, its trunk, and so on.But your actual experience is processed using various regions of the brain. Yet there is no single specific region in the brain that assembles the complete image of the tree and delivers to you the experience, "Ah! That is a mango tree!"Neuroscientists called this problem the "Binding Problem." In other words, it is the problem of assembling scattered pieces of information distributed throughout the brain and fitting them together into a coherent whole.In the latter part of the twentieth century, an American neuroscientist named Bernard Baars proposed a theory called the "Global Workspace Theory" to explain this phenomenon. The theory was highly metaphorical.Baars' metaphor attracted considerable criticism because it seemed to imply the existence of a separate entity that undergoes experience. Scientists do not accept the existence of any such mysterious force.Later, a revised theory known as the "Global Neuronal Workspace Theory" emerged. Today it is widely accepted as an explanation for our conscious experiences.However, this explanation did not satisfy cognitive philosophers such as David Chalmers. He argued that, neuroscientists had solved only an "easy problem" of consciousness. Many fascinating aspects of human experience, he maintained, still remain unexplained. He referred to them as the "Hard Problem of Consciousness."This tug-of-war continued. Neuroscientists claimed that they could explain everything, while philosophers such as Chalmers challenged them by arguing that their explanations were still incomplete.I am not entirely sure how philosophers such as Chalmers define the term "consciousness." In one of his lectures, Chalmers describes consciousness as an inner movie that is continuously playing. He argues that it is a subjective experience. According to him, it cannot be explained in terms of any activity of the brain.Before deciding how right Chalmers is, let us consider a few facts.The Global Neuronal Workspace Theory is capable of explaining how the brain integrates information distributed within itself. Therefore, it appears that the brain possesses at least the capacity to generate some form of conscious experience.By implanting electrodes into certain regions of the brain and stimulating them electromagnetically, it is possible to induce specific experiences. A person can also undergo a variety of experiences by consuming certain psychoactive substances. The brain mechanisms behind these phenomena are fairly well understood. This means that the brain can serve as a vehicle of consciousness.Some researchers have found that intense belief can create specific experiences in the brain even without dependence on any external object. In certain temples of South India, devoted worshippers pierce their tongues. They suspend themselves from poles using hooks driven deep into their backs. Yet they remain immersed in spiritual experiences without any sensation of pain. It has been found that, in such situations, the brain produces chemicals similar to opiates. This means that the brain can radically alter experiences in ways we might not expect.When the same brain is placed under general anesthesia, however, the person becomes completely incapable of experiencing anything at all. This indicates that the brain plays a central role in conscious experience. If the brain is not active, a person cannot have any experience—whether subjective or otherwise.The implications of all these observations are:• The brain is capable of generating conscious experience by integrating external inputs. Moreover, its mechanisms are now reasonably well understood.• Even in the complete absence of sensory inputs, the brain can generate experiences ...
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
まだレビューはありません