May 4, 2018 08:22 PM
(This post was last modified: May 4, 2018 08:44 PM by C C.)
Steven Pinker Interview
http://quillette.com/2018/04/20/steven-p...resilient/
Q: Elon Musk has responded to your arguments about AI by distinguishing functional/narrow AI (used for cars) from general AI which apparently has the potential to be many millions of times more powerful than narrow AI. Do you still hold the same views on AI given this distinction?
SP: “General AI” does not exist at present, and is probably an incoherent concept: a sloppy extrapolation of individual differences among human beings. Intelligence has to be defined relative to goals and the knowledge needed to attain them. In any case the argument against the doomsday fear-mongering of existing AI extends to more powerful systems: any system that monomaniacally pursued one goal (such as making paperclips) while being oblivious to every other goal (such as not turning human beings into paperclips) is not artificially intelligent: it’s artificially stupid, and unlike anything a technologically sophisticated society would ever invent and empower. And scenarios in which the systems take over themselves commit the fallacy that intelligence implies a will to power, which comes from confusing two traits that just happened to come bundled in Homo sapiens because we are products of Darwinian natural selection.
On the Academy
Q: There has been much discussion on Quillette and at Heterodox Academy about the leftist tilt of the academy, especially within the social sciences and the humanities. Yet some of our critics have argued that these concerns are overblown. How does one strike the balance between scrutinizing academic trends without becoming pessimistic or alarmist about the state of education in general?
SP: As with anything else, empirical data are essential: one has to assess how orthodox, how intolerant, how narrow professors and students truly are, and compare them (as best one can) to comparable data from the past. The Heterodox people have cited some alarming trends, though recent findings from the General Social Survey (analyzed by Justin Murphy) indicate that support for free speech (in principle) remains strong.
MORE: http://quillette.com/2018/04/20/steven-p...resilient/
Could robots be counselors?
https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/news/could-ro...experience
RELEASE: New research has shown for the first time that a social robot can deliver a 'helpful' and 'enjoyable' motivational interview (MI) -- a counselling technique designed to support behaviour change.
Many participants in the University of Plymouth study praised the 'non-judgemental' nature of the humanoid NAO robot as it delivered its session -- with one even saying they preferred it to a human.
Led by the School of Psychology, the study also showed that the robot achieved a fundamental objective of MI as it encouraged participants, who wanted to increase their physical activity, to articulate their goals and dilemmas aloud.
MI is a technique that involves the counsellor supporting and encouraging someone to talk about their need for change, and their reasons for wanting to change.
The role of the interviewer in MI is mainly to evoke a conversation about change and commitment, and the robot was programmed with a set script designed to elicit ideas and conversation on how someone could increase their physical activity.
When finished answering each question, the participant taped the top of NAO's head to continue, with some sessions lasting up to an hour.
Lead academic Professor Jackie Andrade explained that, because they are perceived as nonjudgmental, robots may have advantages over more humanoid avatars for delivering virtual support for behavioral change.
"We were pleasantly surprised by how easily the participants adapted to the unusual experience of discussing their lifestyle with a robot," she said. "As we have shown for the first time that a motivational interview delivered by a social robot can elicit out-loud discussion from participants.
"In addition, the participants perceived the interaction as enjoyable, interesting and helpful. Participants found it especially useful to hear themselves talking about their behaviour aloud, and liked the fact that the robot didn't interrupt, which suggests that this new intervention has a potential advantage over other technology-delivered adaptations of MI.
"Concern about being judged by a human interviewer came across strongly in praise for the non-judgemental nature of the robot, suggesting that robots may be particularly helpful for eliciting talk about sensitive issues.
"The next stage is to undertake a quantitative study, where we can measure whether participants felt that the intervention actually increased their activity levels."
~
http://quillette.com/2018/04/20/steven-p...resilient/
Q: Elon Musk has responded to your arguments about AI by distinguishing functional/narrow AI (used for cars) from general AI which apparently has the potential to be many millions of times more powerful than narrow AI. Do you still hold the same views on AI given this distinction?
SP: “General AI” does not exist at present, and is probably an incoherent concept: a sloppy extrapolation of individual differences among human beings. Intelligence has to be defined relative to goals and the knowledge needed to attain them. In any case the argument against the doomsday fear-mongering of existing AI extends to more powerful systems: any system that monomaniacally pursued one goal (such as making paperclips) while being oblivious to every other goal (such as not turning human beings into paperclips) is not artificially intelligent: it’s artificially stupid, and unlike anything a technologically sophisticated society would ever invent and empower. And scenarios in which the systems take over themselves commit the fallacy that intelligence implies a will to power, which comes from confusing two traits that just happened to come bundled in Homo sapiens because we are products of Darwinian natural selection.
On the Academy
Q: There has been much discussion on Quillette and at Heterodox Academy about the leftist tilt of the academy, especially within the social sciences and the humanities. Yet some of our critics have argued that these concerns are overblown. How does one strike the balance between scrutinizing academic trends without becoming pessimistic or alarmist about the state of education in general?
SP: As with anything else, empirical data are essential: one has to assess how orthodox, how intolerant, how narrow professors and students truly are, and compare them (as best one can) to comparable data from the past. The Heterodox people have cited some alarming trends, though recent findings from the General Social Survey (analyzed by Justin Murphy) indicate that support for free speech (in principle) remains strong.
MORE: http://quillette.com/2018/04/20/steven-p...resilient/
Could robots be counselors?
https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/news/could-ro...experience
RELEASE: New research has shown for the first time that a social robot can deliver a 'helpful' and 'enjoyable' motivational interview (MI) -- a counselling technique designed to support behaviour change.
Many participants in the University of Plymouth study praised the 'non-judgemental' nature of the humanoid NAO robot as it delivered its session -- with one even saying they preferred it to a human.
Led by the School of Psychology, the study also showed that the robot achieved a fundamental objective of MI as it encouraged participants, who wanted to increase their physical activity, to articulate their goals and dilemmas aloud.
MI is a technique that involves the counsellor supporting and encouraging someone to talk about their need for change, and their reasons for wanting to change.
The role of the interviewer in MI is mainly to evoke a conversation about change and commitment, and the robot was programmed with a set script designed to elicit ideas and conversation on how someone could increase their physical activity.
When finished answering each question, the participant taped the top of NAO's head to continue, with some sessions lasting up to an hour.
Lead academic Professor Jackie Andrade explained that, because they are perceived as nonjudgmental, robots may have advantages over more humanoid avatars for delivering virtual support for behavioral change.
"We were pleasantly surprised by how easily the participants adapted to the unusual experience of discussing their lifestyle with a robot," she said. "As we have shown for the first time that a motivational interview delivered by a social robot can elicit out-loud discussion from participants.
"In addition, the participants perceived the interaction as enjoyable, interesting and helpful. Participants found it especially useful to hear themselves talking about their behaviour aloud, and liked the fact that the robot didn't interrupt, which suggests that this new intervention has a potential advantage over other technology-delivered adaptations of MI.
"Concern about being judged by a human interviewer came across strongly in praise for the non-judgemental nature of the robot, suggesting that robots may be particularly helpful for eliciting talk about sensitive issues.
"The next stage is to undertake a quantitative study, where we can measure whether participants felt that the intervention actually increased their activity levels."
~