John Hopcroft教授,这位在计算机科学界熠熠生辉的名字,不仅是中国科学院外籍院士,还同时荣膺美国国家科学院、工程院以及艺术与科学院三院院士的崇高荣誉!他的研究深耕于理论计算机科学领域,成就斐然,包括1986年的ACM图灵奖、2010年的I...John Hopcroft教授,这位在计算机科学界熠熠生辉的名字,不仅是中国科学院外籍院士,还同时荣膺美国国家科学院、工程院以及艺术与科学院三院院士的崇高荣誉!他的研究深耕于理论计算机科学领域,成就斐然,包括1986年的ACM图灵奖、2010年的IEEE冯诺依曼奖,以及2017年美国工程院的西蒙雷曼奖创始人奖等.展开更多
最新的GPT系列产品,让人们更加憧憬认知能力远远超过人类的通用AI。与此同时,一些伦理学家认为应该赋予人工智能以道德地位,让它们能为自己的行为负责。斯派洛通过构造“图灵分类测试”的思想实验反对以普特南为代表的计算功能主义的观...最新的GPT系列产品,让人们更加憧憬认知能力远远超过人类的通用AI。与此同时,一些伦理学家认为应该赋予人工智能以道德地位,让它们能为自己的行为负责。斯派洛通过构造“图灵分类测试”的思想实验反对以普特南为代表的计算功能主义的观点,同时也反对构建道德机器。他认为AI缺乏本体论意义上“内在生命”,也不具有惩罚的可能性,从而也不具备道德地位。但是,在斯派洛的思想实验中,并没有严格区分“道德能动者”和“道德承受者”,以致于在斯派洛的论证中,对AI道德地位的界定是模糊的。尽管如此,斯派洛的思想实验仍具有启发性意义。The latest GPT series products make people more hopeful about general AI whose cognitive ability far exceeds that of humans. At the same time, some ethicists argue that AI should be given moral status, holding them responsible for their actions. Sparrow opposed Putnam’s view of computational functionalism through his thought experiment of constructing the Turing triage test, as well as the construction of a moral machine. He argues that AI lacks an “inner life” in an ontological sense, has no “potential for punishment,” and thus has no moral standing. However, in Sparrow’s thought experiment, there is no strict distinction between “moral agent” and “moral patient”, so that in Sparrow’s argument, the definition of AI’s moral status is vague. Still, Sparrow’s thought experiment is instructive.展开更多
文摘最新的GPT系列产品,让人们更加憧憬认知能力远远超过人类的通用AI。与此同时,一些伦理学家认为应该赋予人工智能以道德地位,让它们能为自己的行为负责。斯派洛通过构造“图灵分类测试”的思想实验反对以普特南为代表的计算功能主义的观点,同时也反对构建道德机器。他认为AI缺乏本体论意义上“内在生命”,也不具有惩罚的可能性,从而也不具备道德地位。但是,在斯派洛的思想实验中,并没有严格区分“道德能动者”和“道德承受者”,以致于在斯派洛的论证中,对AI道德地位的界定是模糊的。尽管如此,斯派洛的思想实验仍具有启发性意义。The latest GPT series products make people more hopeful about general AI whose cognitive ability far exceeds that of humans. At the same time, some ethicists argue that AI should be given moral status, holding them responsible for their actions. Sparrow opposed Putnam’s view of computational functionalism through his thought experiment of constructing the Turing triage test, as well as the construction of a moral machine. He argues that AI lacks an “inner life” in an ontological sense, has no “potential for punishment,” and thus has no moral standing. However, in Sparrow’s thought experiment, there is no strict distinction between “moral agent” and “moral patient”, so that in Sparrow’s argument, the definition of AI’s moral status is vague. Still, Sparrow’s thought experiment is instructive.
