Skip to main content

Another thought about Turing and Brooks

Rodney Brooks once wrote that robots would be human when treating them as though they were human was the most efficient way of interacting with them. (Not a precise quote.)

This is an interesting variation on the Turing test. It assumes that we decide the smartness of machines in the context of frequent interactions with them. It also builds on an interesting idea: that in order to deal with another entity, be it human, animal or mineral, we naturally build an internal model of the entity: how it behaves, what it can do, how it is likely to react to stimuli etc. That model exists for all entities that we interact with; a rock is not likely to kick you back, your word processor will likely crash before you can save the document etc.

When the most effective way to predict the behavior of a machine is to assume that it has similar internal structure to ourselves, then it will, for all intents and purposes, be human.

So, here is another thought: how do we know that another human is human? Although this sounds flippant, there are many instances where we forget that another person is a real person: soldiers must do this in order to carry out their job; terrorists must de-humanize their enemy in order to justify their atrocities.

I think that we only really recognize another person as human when we can relate personally to them. In most cases, what that means, is recognizing the other person's behavior as symptomatic of something that we ourselves have experienced. In effect, the model building process consists largely of seeing someone's reaction to an event and relating it to something that we ourselves have experienced. (An aside: how often, when told of some event or situation as it affects someone we know, do we react by quoting something from our own past/situation that somehow is analogous?)

At the heart of this phenomenon is something curious: conventionally, the Turing test is phrased in such a way as to decide whether the other entity is human or not. However, it may be more accurate to say that what we do everyday is try to decide if we ourselves could somehow be that other person (or entity) we are interacting with? Furthermore, it may be, that this emphasizing is only possible because fundamentally, we are all clones to 99.99%: we are all running the same operating system in our mind as it were. We can predict the other person's responses because they could be our responses also.

What does this mean? Well, perhaps we need a new formulation of Turing's test: an entity can be considered human if we believed that we would react the way that the entity reacts had we been that entity. Another consequence may be that machines may be smart and intelligent etc. but not human simply because the code that they run is not our code. A cultural difference between people and machines if you will.

Popular posts from this blog

Comments Should be Meaningless

This is something of a counterintuitive idea: Comments should be meaningless What, I hear you ask, are you talking about? Comments should communicate to the reader! At least that is the received conventional wisdom handed does over the last few centuries (decades at least). Well, certainly, if you are programming in Assembler, or C, then yes, comments should convey meaning because the programming language cannot So, conversely, as a comment on the programming language itself, anytime the programmer feels the imperative to write a meaningful comment it is because the language is not able to convey the intent of the programmer. I have already noticed that I write far fewer comments in my Java programs than in my C programs.  That is because Java is able to capture more of my meaning and comments would be superfluous. So, if a language were able to capture all of my intentions, I would never need to write a comment. Hence the title of this blog.

Sub-turing complete programming languages

Here is an interesting intuition: the key to liberating software development is to use programming languages that are not, by themselves, turing-complete. That means no loops, no recursion 'in-language'. Why? Two reasons: any program that is subject to the halting problem is inherently unknowable: in general, the only way to know what a turing-complete program means is to run it. This puts very strong limitations on the combinatorics of turing-complete programs and also on the kinds of support tooling that can be provided: effectively, a debugger is about the best that you can do with any reasonable effort. On the other hand, a sub-turing language is also 'decidable'. That means it is possible to predict what it means; and paradoxically, a lot easier to provide a rich environment for it etc. etc. An interesting example of two languages on easier side of the turing fence are TeX and CSS. Both are designed for specifying the layout of text, TeX is turing complete and CSS

Existential Types are the flip side of generics

Generic types, as can now be seen in all the major programming languages have a flip side that has yet to be widely appreciated: existential types. Variables whose types are generic may not be modified within a generic function (or class): they can be kept in variables, they can be passed to other functions (provided they too have been supplied to the generic function), but other than that they are opaque. Again, when a generic function (or class) is used, then the actual type binding for the generic must be provided – although that type may also be generic, in which case the enclosing entity must also be generic. Existential types are often motivated by modules. A module can be seen to be equivalent to a record with its included functions: except that modules also typically encapsulate types too. Abstract data types are a closely related topic that also naturally connect to existential types (there is an old but still very relevant and readable article on the topic Abstract types have