Arxiv:2008.07324V2 [Cs.AI] 18 Aug 2020

arXiv:2008.07324v2 [cs.AI] 18 Aug 2020 u hsit esetv,w s ocp nrdcdb Pla by introduced concept a use we perspective, into tran this hopefully, tot put process, of the world in the and from numbers, travel wrong will some We with in intelligence. This to understood. comes self-consistently it t and is completely it whether be observer about to the unsettled) (probably and debate study of under history system the where introspection subject the understand doesn’t rica nelgne hn fteesbet salvld level a as subjects mathe connected. these universally fundamental but of sectio the ideas Think different This with cur ends we Intelligence. intelligence. and as Artificial artificial intelligence intelligence of defining human exploration of to an introduction to an on with start We Introduction 1 sdsusd nelgnei ope ujc u oorve our to due subject complex a is intelligence discussed, As “ it put eloquently Racker Efraim biochemist The cinbo yDulsAas ot-w a eywl eter the be well very may Forty-two Adams. questions? Douglas by a book this fiction call We the ideas. into and subjects broader these push Intellig to Artificial functions of s forcing emergence and as the engineers society, portrayed long modern Today, have writers discipline include Fiction to Ethics. understandings their broaden to have Science. Biol spans Computer that and subject Psychology, a Neuroscience, Artific but thought- Science, quantity new where weighable create single determining to a hope in not we useful exploration, the this during find Also, people that hope Ar hum future do modern by of for capabilities and era the intelligence, new potentially with a and associated and constraints, ideas lives the our explore of to all affect to potential oeto l iigtig,a elas well as things, living all of ponent esatwt nitouto oitliec n oequick move and intelligence to introduction an with start We s and engineers that out pointed Harari Noah Yuval Historian intelli of parts different into journey we exploration, an As hspie xlrsteectn ujc of subject exciting the explores primer This [email protected] nrwN Sloss N. Andrew nelgnePie Rlae1) (Release Primer Intelligence r Inc. Arm ie h nvreadEverything and Universe the Life, .Itliec scmlctdadnti ml a.W suffe We way. small a in not and complicated is Intelligence ”. uut1,2020 19, August rica Intelligence Artificial Abstract 1 intelligence noewoi o hruhycnue just confused thoroughly not is who anyone [email protected] ica Intelligence. tificial rseto assihrn urswhen hubris inherent causes trospection uha scooy hlspy and Philosophy, Psychology, as such s uyipsil o ytmudrstudy under system a for impossible ruly alF Fezer F. Karl ne n ea eurmnsalact all requirements legal and ence, nelgnei udmna com- fundamental a is Intelligence . trsb oeigtecomplexities the covering by starts n n oudrtn h implications, the understand so ing init sdfiin nteeareas. these in deficient as cientists 2 rmr fe h aosscience famous the after primer, [2] g,Pyis hlspy Cognitive Philosophy, Physics, ogy, A) rica nelgnehsthe has Intelligence Artificial (AI). foreground. rvkn usin.Itliec is Intelligence questions. provoking lcnuin e iue1 oplaying to 1, Figure see confusion, al r Inc. Arm w rmtette si distinctly as-in title, the from own frsm xiigthoughts. exciting some sfer r n ftesm.Teei long a is There same. the of one are ec htapa seta.We essential. appear that gence oi i okcalled work his in to a nelgnemyb headed. be may Intelligence ial yot oepoon thoughts profound more onto ly yonde novmn.T help To involvement. deep own ry aia ocpsascae with associated concepts matical n.Ti ae san is paper This ans. gtase,btwa r the are what but answer, ight etyudrtn tadmove and it understand rently init nteftr will future the in cientists h Republic The attempt from r Figure 1: Words associated with intelligence

(514a−520a). This concept is called Plato’s Cave [35], see Figure 2. The scene, outlined in the concept, describes a cave, with a set of prisoners. Each prisoner’s existence involves facing forward in one direction, distanced apart, shackled to one another, and with no communication. Behind them, shines a bright candle. From their perspective, the entire world consists of silhouettes of themselves. Meaning their world, and realization of self is both narrow and distorted as viewed by people outside the cave. Intelligence suffers from the very same problem since we are considering the subject from our perspective, with our tools. We do not have the luxury of viewing intelligence from an outside perspective and are forced to rely on introspection. When we discuss intelligence, what are we trying to understand? Is it finding the purpose of intelligence? What components make up intelligence? How can it be applied? Discover the limitations? Measure the capability? How to build it? Or even, how to control it? Each question is essential and complicated. But the question we try to cover first is : why we should care?.

Why should we care? Apart from the fact that intelligence strengthens survival, it also empowers humans to handle abstract problems. One such problem is “why has something occurred?”, explaining the cause of

2 Figure 2: Plato’s Cave by Rex St. John (January, 2020)

a situation. We will discuss the concept of cause and eﬀect throughout this primer, as it touches on many ideas associated with intelligence. Another reason to care is that artiﬁcial versions can augment or even replace our intelligence, e.g., extend our sensory capabilities such as eyesight, hearing, and data processing. We can use intelligence to push the boundaries of knowledge and exploration. Lastly, in theory, with greater capability comes resilience, higher reliability, and, hopefully, better decision making.

Creativity Creativity is the capacity to understand a problem space and produce a novel solution. If intelligence were solely about carrying out a set of tasks, then we would have already created the most advanced intelligent systems. Even with traditional rule-based systems, we can eﬀectively repeat complicated tasks. The challenge is handling new problems and new situations. Handling new situations is why creativity comes into the equation. It is one of the signiﬁcant attributes which sets animal species apart from one another. It is also how we solve new problems which are either fully or partially visible. Creativity can be in many forms: playing football, painting, composing music, solving mathe-

3 matical equations, or designing new User Interfaces. The list is endless. There are many cultural and social aspects associated with creativity. An essential factor is that it moves humans beyond the primary survival objectives to other subjects such as art, music, and aesthetics. In other words, the secondary reasons, not just the primary goals of life, are sought. It is arguable whether or not creativity exists in other animals. For example, is a bird song creative? Is it an expression of bird-self? Or is it simply a prescribed sequence of musical notes that a bird uses to maximize its chances to mate? Does a bird song purely satisfy a functional purpose of maximizing the effect of mating or mimicking? Are humans alone in creativity? What is creativity? Margaret Boden, a Research Professor of Cognitive Science, broke down creativity into three useful mechanisms [4], namely exploration - playing within the rules, combination - applying one set of rules to another domain, and transformation - rewriting the rules by removing a critical constraint. For intelligence, exploration creativity is risk-averse and limited, and at the other end of the scale, transformation has the highest risk with potential novelty. Humans can achieve all three levels. By contrast, current Artificial Intelligence struggles with anything beyond exploratory, it never ventures beyond the original programming. If Artificial Intelligence is going to be part of our society, does it need to be creative? Do we want it to be creative? For now, creativity serves as a distinct difference between human-level intelligence and machine intelligence.

Are we living in a trusted simulator? Are we? Maybe. Rene Descartes (circa 1637) struggled with this question and went to enormous lengths to create an answer, culminating in the famous line, from Discourse on Method, “Cogito, ergo sum”, or translated to “I think, therefore I am”. Regardless of the answer to the question, intelligence plays the same role in both the real and the simulated. Everything in the world can be replaced by a simulation and the underlying decision processes of the individual would remain unchanged. Simulation is critical if we want to mimic intelligence. We will return to this subject in both Sections 8 & 11 on Consciousness and the Wrong Numbers. The only thing we can trust is our ability to think, everything else (the inputs from our environment) must be considered untrustworthy. This places skepticism into the forefront of intelligence. In the field of Artificial Intelligence skepticism is a useful quality, and it encourages the developer to reduce potential errors by having more sensors, either of different types or the same type, to reduce the concerns and potential errors. Simultaneous correlation of disperse sensors is one of the best reasons for the Internet of Things (IoT).

Alan M. Turing Alan Turing has been a significant contributor in our understanding of both natural and Artificial Intelligence. He covered basic fundamental operations of computing, provided a measurement for intelligence and described his ideas on how to build said intelligence. On the fundamental operations of computing, he devised what is commonly called the Turing Machine (TM), where digital computation is a small set of essential functions. It is also worth mentioning biological organisms possibly use a variant of the Turing Machine called a Random Access Machine (or RAM). The significant difference between Turing Machines and Random Access Machines is that a RAM-based system can access arbitrary tape locations. Turing Machines can convert to Random Access Machines, but this is not bidirectional; not all Random Access Machines convert to a Turing Machine. Also, it is worth noting that in biology the hardware is numerous

4 and software is the same, whereas in digital computers the hardware tends to be limited and the software is different. In Computing machinery and intelligence [41], released in 1950, Turing explored the idea of creating Artificial Intelligence. He determined that a system will require an ability to make errors/mistakes, i.e., allow for creativity, and must include, as a critical component, some form of randomness. Finally, Turing envisaged a test that can gauge whether Artificial Intelligence has been achieved, either by a system mimicking intelligence or a system with intelligence. See Section 6, titled Measuring Intelligence for more details.

Induction, correlation, and causality To help understand the rest of the primer we need to introduce three terms. The first is induction. Induction is taking what came before as a reference to what occurs in the future. Mathematics uses this technique to prove equations, for example if we can prove f(0), f(1) then in theory we can prove f(n) and f(n + 1). Using this proof mechanism we can determine whether a recursive function converges to a solution or diverges away from a solution. This method is called proof by induction. In a general sense, we all use this technique to justify future actions because the past has shown that these actions produce certain favorable results. This form of intelligence uses history to predict the future. It is worth noting that the philosopher David Hume spent significant effort thinking about The Problems of Induction [16]. Humans spend a significant amount of time correlating information. We take known inputs and attempt to pattern match with a known object. That object may be an image, a sound, or even a feeling. These correlations can be very sophisticated such as face recognition or even partial recognition, where not all the information is visible. This ability to correlate comes with the added feature of learning new objects. Machine learning, and in particular the concept of Deep Learning, has progressed by leaps and bounds in recent years. After years of quietness, the Artificial Neural Network (ANN) field exploded with excitement. Geoffrey Hinton, a Cognitive Psychologist and Computer scientist, co-authored a famous paper in 2012 ImageNet Classification with Deep Convolutional Neural Networks [21]. Hinton et al. showed a route for Artificial Neural Networks to equal, if not exceed, human ability to correlate. The ability to exceed marks the start of Deep Learning, where using lots of training data, an Artificial Neural Network can be configured to be just as good at identifying patterns as a human. This approach was shown to be superior to all other approaches when AlexNet won the 2012 ImageNet (LSVRC-2012) competition, with significantly lower error rates than any of its nearest competitors. The last important concept is causality. In The Book of Why: The New Science of Cause and Effect (2018) [32] by Judea Pearl et al., Pearl conjectured that humans are better at cause-and-effect than statistics-and-probability. They point out that causality differs greatly from correlation. In that correlation is about mapping input data, via a known pattern recognizer, to an output. The mathematics around causality involves creating a data model. The model for any situation connects the data to a set of actions. This model can be used to predict the future by testing counterfactual arguments. A counterfactual argument is one that is contrary to facts in a hypothetical future world, or state. This is best described in a statement if X then Y , where the conditional clause X is completely false.

5 Recommended reading • Republic, by Plato

• The Book of Why: New Science of Cause and Eﬀect, by Judea Pearl et al.

• The Creativity Code, by Marcus Du Sautoy

• Introduction to Philosophy - Classical and Contemporary Readings, by John Perry Et al.

2 Human intelligence

If intelligence were purely about brain size, then we would be 4th, see Figure 3. Whales, elephants, and dolphins would be correspondingly 1st 2nd and 3rd place. We do not have the largest brains on the planet. Over 10-20,000 years ago, human brains were larger than they are today [27], so our brains have shrunk during the process of evolution. One potential reason put forward for this change is the transition to society based problem-solving, i.e., from isolated individuals to communicating individuals. We do not require the same brain size to solve each problem. In other words, we as humans have become a distributed system, we solve problems in groups.

Brain Feature Measurement Type Massively parallel Volume 1400 cm3 (85 in3) Neurons 86 Bn Synapses (network) > 100 Tn Average adult weight 1.5 kg (3.3 lb) Processing capability 1 exaFLOP MIPS Performance 100 Mn Power Requirement 20 Watts Brain cell 0.07 volts at 1 nanoamp

Figure 3: Human Brain Speciﬁcation

Sophisticated language advancement has been a significant contributor to the transition towards social problem-solving. We use language to coordinate complicated spatial-temporal problems, e.g., problem-domains, creativity, courtship, causality, and abstraction. Language is a major differen- tiator in social interaction between animals. This brings us to the question: How is Human intelligence organized? The question is complicated. We will attempt to frame this with three different filters, namely functional components, physical system design, and knowledge representation. These filters are not mutually exclusive, and there are probably many more, but we will limit it to three. We decided to separate the concept of consciousness as a unique and separate subject. It is worth mentioning many systems in the human body are automatic and rely on reflexes, e.g., touching something scorching (electrical signal) or freezing (chemical signal). Many of these systems are not under the mental control of the host.

6 Functional components The human brain divides into two functional components, namely the hippocampus and the prefrontal lobe. Both functional components carry out different operational tasks. The hippocampus stores memory, carries out object recognition, and even achieves simple decision making. By comparison, the prefrontal lobe is much more complicated. It can assess complex problems and carry out advanced decision making. The main difference between the two functions is that the hippocampus cannot determine the ramifications of a decision. This limitation means that the hippocampus can easily include irrational prejudices and biases without understanding the broader implications. Early Machine Learning systems exhibited this characteristic as well, and they produced some notably embarrassing results. Today, engineers mitigate this issue by carefully selecting the training data used to create the models in the hope to reduce bias in the system. For humans, the prefrontal lobe acts as an override for the hippocampus. The override is achieved by understanding the implications of a decision and stopping anything flagged as having an untoward outcome. The prefrontal lobe achieves this by abstracting the ideas and understanding the ramifications. For Machine Learning systems, the prefrontal lobe function is one of the desired next capabilities. Today we rely on hippocampus style functions with carefully selected training data, but tomorrow there is a desire to have higher-level capability that understands and reacts to consequences.

Physical system design Brains, whether they are controlling a bee or a human, exploit massive parallel processing to achieve intelligence, based on a complicated network of biological neurons. These neurons, and the associated structures, differ in complexity between animals. At a higher physical level, the human brain is divided into two physical hemispheres, labeled left and right. Each hemisphere has distinct characteristics that give humans uniqueness, such as being left or right-handed. Typically, the right hemisphere is more artistic, creative, intuitive, spatially aware, and controls the left motor skills. By comparison, the left hemisphere is verbal, analytical, linguistic, provides linear thinking, and control of the right motor skills. These non-physical roles can be swapped, like handedness or for a variety of medical reasons. Why do the left and right hemispheres matter for human intelligence? It matters because they are two co-dependent intelligent systems [20]. In Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow [14] Harari highlighted an important experiment carried out in the 1960s. People with severe life-threatening epilepsy were given the option of hemisphere separation, which cuts the physical communication between the left and the right side of the brain. This allowed researchers the opportunity for some experimentation. One experiment involved a patient and a simple question “What do you want to be?”. First, because the question is verbal, the left hemisphere replied “a librarian”. The researchers then put a pen in the patient’s left hand and showed the same question as a written note. The right hemisphere responded, and replied “a racing car driver”. The different answers enforce the notion that the human brain is, in fact, not one brain but two brains connected closely together. Each hemisphere has its desires and allocated control tasks. These observations make a human more than a single intelligent system but a combination of two distinctly different interconnected systems that require arbitration. As well as the left and right hemispheres there are three important physical components, namely cerebrum, cerebellum and brainstem [17]. The largest part of the brain is taken up by the cerebrum, which goes across hemispheres, it handles an array of functions including touch, vision, speech, reasoning, emotions, learning, hearing, and lastly precision motor control. The cerebellum is much

7 smaller and coordinates muscle movement and balance. Finally the brainstem connects to cerebrum, cerebellum and spinal cord. It handles the automatic reﬂex systems from breathing to swallowing.

Knowledge representation Stuart Russell, Computer Scientist at University of California Berkeley, wrote “Intelligence without knowledge is like an engine without fuel” [37]. Knowledge representation is at the heart of Artificial Intelligence and all forms of intelligence. Once the right representation is determined, an algorithm, be it biological or digital, can easily manipulate the system to create the desired result. We pick one idea on human knowledge representation, which, if true, has a major implication on intelligence as a whole. A research paper released in 2017 titled Cliques of Neurons Bound into Cavities Provide a Missing Link between Structure and Function, conjectured that there is a possibility that we think in up to 11-dimensions [36]. They used a technique called Algebraic Topology on neurons. The biological neurons appear to form clusters called cliques and spaces called cavities. These elements, in turn, form high-dimensional geometric objects. Biological neurons, differ greatly from Artificial Neurons, in that each neuron has extreme connectivity, i.e., connections. An average human brain contains about 86 billion neurons, with over 100 trillion connections, providing thought and consciousness. Using this technique, the researchers observed that ideas appear, in the brain, as dynamic hills of shifting sand, rising up and then disappearing, with the potential of being up-to 11-dimensions. 11-dimensions is far greater than the four dimensions, three spatial plus a temporal, we generally consider important. Even today, if we look at the most complex Deep Learning systems, they are probably operating at around six dimensions at most.

What are we? Christof Koch, Neuroscientist at the Allen Institute for Brain Science, and others have played with the idea that we are merely a glorified Turing Machine, or more likely a Random Access Machine, made from biological components, in essence, a device incapable of understanding its programming [20]. From this world view, the mind is a program that runs on a wet computer. This wet computer is unconventional. It does not follow the standard von Neumann design rule. As-in, the wet computer does not have a system-wide clock or communication bus, and is built from low-speed millisecond switches, compute is combined with memory, and analog and digital signals are mixed. These all create a very different kind of machine. He also notes that the human brain hardly uses any feed-forward for image processing, unlike the artificial equivalent. The biological vision design allows humans to learn from a single example, whereas today’s Deep Learning systems require many examples to create a consistent visual model. The human vision system is a lot more sophisticated and efficient than its artificial cousin. The biological systems follow billions of years of evolution, i.e., an endless repetition of natural selection, crossover, and mutation.

Neuron view As mentioned previously, biological systems have many diﬀerent hardware devices. For vision, there are about 100 diﬀerent types of biological neurons. Koch notes that the cortical network is mostly a feed-backward network [20]. Roughly only 1 in 10 neurons have connections from a previous stage. The vast majority obtain information from nearby neurons or neurons at a higher abstract level, i.e., feed-backward. The theorists do not know precisely why this is the case, but it allows the brain to learn from a single example. Today, the most successful Machine Learning systems

8 rely solely on feed-forward. Each layer passing filter data to the next. We do not find feed-forward mechanisms in nature. For future Machine Learning, Recurrent Neural Networks, and Neuromorphic Computing show promise in feed-backward connections. These technologies, and in particular the hardware appear- ing in the Neuromorphic Computing space, are beginning to excite Neuroscientists as a possible solution for future artificial systems.

Recommended reading • The Feeling Of Life Itself, by Christof Koch

• Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow, by Yuval Noah Harari

• Human Compatible, by Stuart Russell

• Novacene - The Coming Age of Hyperintelligence, by James Lovelock

3 Reasoning

Logical reasoning can be tough for some people. Reasoning is the act of going through a problem or situation in a systematic way. As a method of introduction, we will define logical inference as being achieved using one of three methods, namely deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning involves making a statement or statements and inferring a conclusion, i.e., general-to-specific. Inductive reasoning, and abductive, take the opposite approach and attempt to generalize from an instance, i.e., specific-to-general. In other words, the latter methods incorporate an element of uncertainly or probability. Abductive reasoning differs in that it includes cause-and- effect.

Examples of the three reasoning methods:

• Deductive reasoning: “all adults were once children”, “Jenny is still alive and no longer a child”, so we can deduce “Jenny is an adult”.

• Inductive reasoning: “the ﬁrst person I met this morning was happy”, so “everyone is happy this morning”.

• Abductive reasoning: “a soccer ball is ﬂying towards us”, so “a football player on the opposite team must have kicked the ball”.

Reasoning is fundamental to intelligence. The masters of reasoning are considered the most intelligent in our society. Deductive reasoning can be made a mechanical process, whereas inductive and abductive reasoning both require some form of inspirational jump, i.e., calculated uncertainty. Within Computer Science, rule-based Expert Systems, and languages such-as Prolog, have taken direct advantage of deductive reasoning. Either going forward or backwards. The example given of deductive reasoning above is a forward deduction example, but if we say ”Jenny is an adult” we have the rules to backward deduce that she was once a child. Machine Learning grapples with inductive and abductive reasoning. Both requiring some form of probability, and potentially randomness, to land onto a good enough, or general solution where all the rules are not known and models are created by observation.

9 There are many other components of reasoning which are worth mentioning [12]:

Observed/Non-observed: Reasoning is entirely different when the problem is fully observable as opposed to partially observable. An example of a situation that is altogether observable is the game of chess, where all the future moves are calculated in advance using some form of a search mechanism, e.g., iterative deepening A* search. These are the realms in which computer intelligence outmatch even the greatest human minds. IBM’s Deep Blue beat Garry Kasparov in Chess [11] and Google’s AlphaGo defeated the then grandmaster Lee Sedol in the game of Go [30]. Neither system was held back by human understanding or beliefs. They could break known human limitations using experimentation and logic. Easily defined systems where programmers or mathematicians can represent all possible outcomes are a great showcase of computers brute-force computing. By contrast, partially observable or obscure problems are challenging. These problems require some form of a best guess. A good example are control systems for autonomous cars, where decisions are made based on a combination of partial observations and prior experiences, i.e., there are always situations that are new and unknown. It is worth pointing out that AlphaGo was trained with humans and took several weeks to become a grandmaster. Its successor, AlphaZero, learned by playing itself, and it only took a few days to equal and beat AlphaGo. Both used Reinforcement Learning, which is a reward-based system. AlphaGo used the socratic recollection approach, which effectively means starting from a known point of knowledge. AlphaZero started with a clean slate (tabula rasa) [9]. The computational hardware required for AlphaZero is considerably less than for AlphaGo.

Demonstrative/Non-demonstrative inference: Demonstrative inference is one where the premises can directly form the conclusion. In other words, a decision is true, if and only if the premises are also true. By comparison, the non-demonstrative inference is when the premises do not directly form the conclusion. The conclusion can be entirely false even-though the premise is, in fact, true. The connections mean that truth-preserving only occurs in demonstrative inference and not in non-demonstrative inference [12].

Ampliative/Non-ampliative inference: The ampliative inference is frequently used in reasoning to mean “adding to that which is already known”. This extension occurs when the conclusion contains content that was not present “either explicitly or implicitly in the premise”. For example, in a murder mystery novel where the main focus was on two characters A and B as the main suspects, it is revealed, generally, on the last page, an unexpected character C who is the murderer [12]. Philosopher David Hume in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding [18], believed there are two forms of reasoning relation of ideas and matter of fact. The relation of ideas is both demonstrative and non-ampliative inference, whereas the matter of fact is ampliative inference and not necessarily truth-preserving. We can make a conclusion which is true, even-though the premises are false.

Recommended reading • The Book of Why: New Science of Cause and Eﬀect, Judea Pearl Et al.

• The Creativity Code, by Marcus Du Sautoy

• Introduction to Philosophy - Classical and Contemporary Readings, by John Perry Et al.

10 4 Bias, prejudice, and individuality

Bias is the showing of favoritism for or against an object compared with another. That object can be a thing, person, or group. Generally speaking it tends to be a learned mechanism. The human experience occurs through perception. A significant amount of perception filtering takes place to focus on specific tasks. For example, a task could be a human first touching their nose and then touching their toes. These appear to happen at the same speed, but the neural distance between a human’s nose and the brain is a fraction of the distance from their toes. Human biases exist as a way to focus intelligence on specific goals and tasks. This is the way human brains define normal and non-normal. While human bias does exhibit itself in destructive ways, it does serve a significant function in day-to-day intelligence by determining what is relevant at any given moment. In a way, it is a filter on the human mind to show what we care about most at a moment in time. An excellent example of a computer learning bias is Microsoft’s chatbot known as Tay [39]. The chatbot used information from Twitter to learn. Unfortunately, the chatbot learned all the wrong things, i.e., extreme human prejudice. In epistemological terms, we gain new knowledge if it is both relevant and salient. In this context, human bias determines what is relevant to the individual, and prior experience determines salience. Therefore, humans learn more items only if the information is understandable and fits in with their interests and world-views. In biology, bias defines individuals; without bias, there are no individuals. For Machine Learn- ing, there is good and bad biasing. Good bias is when a system follows a specific path. By comparison, bad biasing is when the system exhibits biases that were not intended. There are many examples of bad biasing in Machine Learning. Currently, the main method used to avoid bad biasing is to select training-data that reduces the possibilities of bad decision making. Two other methods that could help identify, and potentially circumvent, bad biasing are causality modeling as outlined by Judea Pearl [32] and understanding the decision with explainable AI [37] (see section 10).

5 System design of intelligence

Intelligence has a vital physical component. The physical location determines performance, latency, and capability within the body or system. As-in where physically is the intelligence required? Performance is whether intelligence has the speed necessary to produce the desired outcome. The latency is about response times, i.e., no use having a perfect answer if the answer is too late. For intelligence, response-times can be strict or relaxed depending upon the problem-domain, e.g., driving a car or designing an airplane wing. Finally, capability - does the intelligence have enough functional units to take in all the inputs and execute the rules to produce a solution. When is a system too limited, or a problem too much to handle? As well as the computation and communication aspects to intelligence, there are memory considerations, i.e., short term and long term memory. Is the memory required to be in the foreground, or is there a background element to the memory? Is the memory longer term where it will be seldom required or short term instantly required? For animals, the combination of computation and memory occurs in a very non-von Neumann fashion and are systemically inseparable.

11 Centralized and distributed intelligence In nature, there are diﬀerent ways intelligence is organized. For instance, cephalapods [13] clearly demonstrate intelligent actions based on problem solving and memory. The evolution of its intelligence has created a unique structure. Rather than having a large centralized brain, an Octopus’s intelligence is distributed into their limbs. This makes each resemble a distinct thinking entity that works in cooperation with the rest of the octopoidal body. Another form of intelligence is found in groups. Bees, ants, soccer teams, and more recently, military drones all exhibit what is called swarm intelligence: here the system itself is the intelligence.

There are at least 5 distinct physical architectures or categories of intelligence. That can be generally applied to both natural forms of intelligence and artiﬁcial ones.

• Centralized intelligence has one large brain required to perform all tasks. All memory, knowledge, reasoning, and correlation occurs in this centralized location. All existing redundancy is localized.

• Decentralized intelligence has multiple brains, all remaining in a single entity. Knowledge, reasoning, and correlation are all duplicated throughout the entity. Decentralized means that intelligence has distinct physical redundancy, and each unit can carry out similar tasks with high cooperation.

• Distributed means that the intelligence is part of a vast interconnected network, physically located away from one another, not necessarily part of the same single entity. This network potentially involves a hierarchy of intelligence. Nodes can be heterogeneous in nature. Re- dundancy occurs because of scale. In computing, this comes under N-version programming or Byzantine Algorithms.

• Swarm intelligence is similar to distributed intelligence, but the physical nodes are much more localized and act as one entity. The nodes, within the swarm, are inﬂuenced by their adjacent neighbors. Redundancy occurs at the node level. If a node fails, the system can self-reconﬁgure.

• Cloud model, for only Artiﬁcial Intelligence, is an example of a hybrid structure. Where loosely coupled datacenters have the capability to fail-over, but at any given time there is one dominant datacenter. Redundancy exists in that each datacenter in the group can become a primary.

As intelligent systems move out of a central location, co-ordination and communication latency becomes a significant bottleneck, i.e., scaling effects arise. Pressure occurs as the need for the system to optimize at both edge nodes and the nodes dedicated to co-ordination. In particular, how knowledge is structured, disseminated, and eventually transferred between all nodes of the system becomes essential. For humans, language, either written or spoken, plays an important function. Scaled federated systems [10] (a specific form of distributed systems) can be an effective mechanism to create a higher order of intelligence.

Artiﬁcial variables In designing a system, we must take all the diﬀerent constraints into account. Figure 4 shows three possible design considerations, namely latency, energy, and sophistication. Sophistication in terms

12 of the type of problems that can be tackled. These are separate constraints yet can be equally important. Speciﬁc problems will have additional constraints. Latency is the required time to make a decision. For example, an autonomous car makes most decisions instantly, similar to when humans are driving.

Figure 4: LES variables

Energy is also a constraint, the energy required to produce a decision may be much more than is available locally, especially at the edge. In these situations, system intelligence may have to be adopted. In computers, that is the datacenter; in humans, it is the society or political hierarchy. Alternatively, a decision on the latency requirements might help reduce the energy required. Finally, the required sophistication makes a diﬀerence in how to organize intelligence. If the requirement is rule-based, then the system must be capable of executing a set of rules, whereas something more sophisticated, such-as conscience (right or wrong), requires a more complicated structure and approach.

6 Measuring intelligence

One of the most critical questions we have asked is how to measure intelligence. How do we know that someone, or something, is intelligent? As an example, is a rock intelligent? If not, why not? We have a plethora of controversial tools to determine human intelligence, but how about Artificial Intelligence? For Artificial Intelligence, the environment is important, and Artificial Intelligent systems can seem super intelligent in highly constrained microworlds [38], e.g., the block world [43] being a good example. Fundamentally, most measurements involve testing the agent on the completion of some specific task. These tasks vary from reciting facts from memory to creating long-form answers to physical tasks such as puzzles. We will go into some examples of these tests.

Standardized testing Standardized testing has become ubiquitous with testing intelligence. From grade school to grad- uate school, testing is the most common way for students to show they are capable of displaying intelligence.

13 Criticisms of standardized testing are due to not all children being able to learn in the same way or exhibit a specific intelligence. It also tends to ignore the creative aspects of intelligence, assuming that mathematics and reading comprehension are the only ways to exhibit intelligence. Standardized testing is based on the assumption that intelligence is standardized. As this paper hopefully shows, the problem is much more complicated. The Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence in 2019 announced that they created an Artificial Intelligent system that could pass the standard 8th-grade science test [28]. According to the New York Times, the system managed to correctly answer over 90 percent of the questions on an 8th- grade science test and more than 80 percent on a 12th-grade exam.

IQ test The Intelligence Quotient test has become the de facto intelligence test for many decades. Scoring high earns a prestigious invitation to Mensa. However, broken down, one’s IQ typically relates to not how much knowledge one has but is one’s capacity for knowledge. Another way to look at this is how much water is in the glass, versus what is the capacity of the glass. Are humans, either born intelligent or do environmental effects make them intelligent? Alternatively, is it a bit of both? Again, there are signs IQ tests, explicitly designed for Artificial Intelligence, are starting to appear. Washington State University (WSU) claims to have created the first-ever IQ test for Artificial Intelligence [45], funded by Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). WSU created a test that measures real-world performance in novel, and unknown environments, that do not account for complexity. The end score takes into account the “accuracy, correctness, time taken, and the amount of data they need to perform”.

Language as a measure of intelligence The Philosophy of Language is an endeavor around categorizing how humans learn a language. The concept is similar to other test forms. They are rooted in the conjecture on how the brain stores symbolic language. From a simple measurement perspective, the size of one’s vocabulary can be a measure of intelligence. Shakespeare may have had a vocabulary of 40-60,000 words. The average English speaker has a vocabulary of 20-30,000 words. Then using these measurements, we can produce an intelligence scale. Facebook had to shut down an Artificial Intelligent system for creating a private language [22]. The purpose of the Facebook system was to explore the subject of negotiation, but the plan quickly went in a different direction. Two Artificial Intelligent systems, connected, learned from each other’s mistakes, and quickly developed a unique language. These systems started with basic English.

Problem solving Measuring problem-solving ability is a way to measure reasoning capability without language. One of the best ways to do this is through Behavioral Psychology. Behavioral Psychology is a school of thought focused on observable and measurable intelligence. It assumes a blank slate (tabula rasa) and that all aspects of intelligence are due to a learning process. One’s intelligence is directly proportional to the complexity of the problem domain. Problem-solving, in this case, refers to a physical embodiment of deductive reasoning. Pavlovian conditioning is the best example of Behavioral Psychology put into observable practice. By shaping the environment, speciﬁc actions can be co-related to understanding the world

14 and capacity for intelligence. Since animals lack the ability for speech or refuse to talk to humans, this is one of the first examples of being able to test an animal’s understanding. Crows, primates, and cephalopods all exhibit the ability to reason up to several steps in advance to solve problems. In some cases, crows can solve problems better than most 5-years-olds. Crows have shown an ability to retrieve objects floating in containers just out of beak reach by adding rocks [24]. Problem solving as a measure shows some promise as a method to evaluate certain kinds of Artificial Intelligence. This is especially true for systems that navigate changing environments or are presented with new problems to solve [7].

Measuring brain activity Measuring the electrical activity of the brain is important to determine whether non-responsive people are either in a vegetative state or suffering from locked in syndrome. Vegetative state is when a person appears to be awake without any awareness. By comparison, locked in syndrome is a condition where a person is totally aware but cannot communicate. Both are commonly caused by some form of stroke or head injury. This is where the non-invasive Brain Computer Interface technology can be used to help determine levels of consciousness. For example, one method to help discover the level of consciousness is called Zap and Zip [20]. A cap with sensors is placed onto the patient’s head. The sensors measure electroencephalogram, or more commonly referred to as EEG, activity throughout the brain. A magnetic pulse ”zap” is sent out. The cap sensors then pick-up the EEG signals. This is a large amount of unstructured data. Then the zip compression algorithm is used to compress the data. The resulting file size can then be examined and used as a measurement of consciousness. A small file size indicates that most of the brain’s systems are running in automatic mode. A large file may indicate that the patient is conscious but unable to communicate. The zip algorithm compresses common repeating patterns, and leaves unique patterns unchanged. The zip compression algorithm is what is called a lossless compression algorithm, as-in no information is lost in the process. Artificial Intelligence has no consciousness, and as such there is no equivalent measurement method.

Recommended reading • The Feeling Of Life Itself, by Christof Koch

• Human Compatible, by Stuart Russell

• Artiﬁcial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, by Stuart Russell Et al.

• On the Measure of Intelligence, by Fran¸cois Chollet

7 Mathematically modelling intelligence

In an attempt to make the world understandable, human beings invented mathematics. For com- pleteness, it is worth mentioning there are alternative views, one being that mathematics is actually naturally occurring and so discovered rather than invented. For the purposes of this discussion we will choose the invented concept.

15 Mathematics is a collection of rules that attempts to model the world about us. It is a tool. We estimate that it is only a matter of time before we can model intelligence mathematically. There are vast number of techniques for algorithmically representing the world. The following are the most focused on modeling intelligence. In many cases, these methodologies require an expert, in most cases, a human, to assist in pointing out the correct from the incorrect. The essential element to keep in mind while reading this section is the George Box aphorism: “All models are wrong, but some are useful.” The models are a subsection of the field known as Machine Learning. In general, there are two main categories of learning, namely supervised and unsupervised. As the name implies, supervised learning requires an expert to dictate what is correct and what is an incorrect outcome, whereas unsupervised learning requires no domain expert to intervene. There is a third sub-category, which includes, for example, semi-supervised learning. These methods live in-between the two main categories. There are many other techniques within Machine Learning. However, these two represent distinct ways of learning. We will categorize each model by pairing it with one of the different elements, previously defined, associated with intelligence and highlighting their unique bio-mimicry. The point for this is two- fold. First to put the methodology being discussed into perspective and second to reinforce the notion that replication requires detailed definition and a form of measurement.

Specialization vs generalization Statistical modeling is all about optimizing based on some desired result. Engineers, researchers, and data scientists define the methods and the desired outcomes. Chollet defines intelligence as “The intelligence of a system is a measure of its skill-acquisition efficiency over a scope of tasks, with respect to priors, experience, and generalization difficulty.” [7]. This is useful to keep in mind as most, if not all, of these methodologies, optimize for a specific task. Chollet points out that there is no quantifiable measure for the general. The more optimized a model is for a particular task, the more specialized it is, and the less general it will become. Historically, we believed that specialized knowledge came from generalized knowledge. However, the following methods show how to obtain specialized knowledge without having any general knowledge. Each model has constraints, but all focus on optimizing a particular feature. For example, Reinforcement Learning (for now) optimizes along one variable, defined by its reward function.

Bayesian probabilism Bio-mimicry note: Paired with deductive reasoning and statistics

Bayesian probabilism is where the comparison between human and Machine Intelligence stops, as-in biological systems are generally weak at statistics. As mentioned previously, Judea Pearl believes humans are just wrongly-wired or more precisely intentionally wrongly-wired for other evolutionary priorities [32]. Bayesian probability lends itself mostly to robotics and Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (SLAM), specifically. The reason for the popularity in these areas is because it seems to be the best method to mitigate multiple sources of information to establish a consensus of best known. For example, while a robot tracks its path, it is always running on a minimal amount of information and makes decisions on statistical likelihood. Bayesian probabilism is underpinned by the Bayes Theorem, which in practical terms is a mathematical equation for how justified a specific belief is about the world.

16 Bayes Theorem is deﬁned as follows:

P (B|A)P (A) P (A|B)= P (B) Bayes Theorem mathematically expresses classical logic, as far as the known is concerned. When dealing with the unknown, new variables need to be introduced. Entropy in probabilism refers to the amount of the problem-space that remains unknown. As the equation expresses the probability that something is true, the amount known about the system needs to be recorded and categorized.

Deep learning Bio-mimicry note: Paired with the physical nature of the human brain

Given the popularity of Deep Learning, there is a gamut of material available on the subject. Here we will go into a brief overview of the biological basis and the mathematical functions that allow Deep Learning models to learn.

Artificial neurons The fundamental building block of Deep Learning is the Artificial Neuron (AN), also commonly known as a perceptron. An Artificial Neuron is an imitation of the same neurons found in the brain. A single biological neuron has input in the form of dendrites and outputs in the form of axons. The machine equivalent, the Artificial Neuron, is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Artiﬁcial Neuron (Wiki media Commons)

Here we have a set of inputs, a transfer function, and an activation function. There is a threshold that is also often referred to as the bias. In simplistic terms, a simple Artificial Neural Network (ANN) can consist of only a few neurons. Typically, an Artificial Neural Network consists of Artificial Neurons arranged in layers, each layer connecting to the next. Deep Learning then is a

17 very complex layer system of thousands of neurons. Through a mathematical function known as back-propagation and supervised learning, over time, these weights and thresholds will slowly and carefully modify to give the correct answer when given a set of inputs.

Figure 6: Georges Croegaert The Art Critic (Wiki media Commons)

Generative Adversarial Networks Bio-mimicry note: Paired with creativity

Generative Adversarial Networks, or simply GANs, are based on Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) where two networks compete with opposing goals on the same data set. Generative Adversarial Networks have been used in everything from Deepdreams, Deepfakes, or generating new faces for which there is no existing person. See for yourself at This person does not exist [19]. A Generative Adversarial Network consists of two networks, namely the generative network and the discriminative network. These are often referred to as the creator and the critic. The critic, see Figure 6, is similar to a typical supervised network, trained to recognize speciﬁc cases. The creator’s role is to fool the critic through clever use of feature extraction. Over time and given enough samples, the creator can mimic the features found in the dataset. The critic network judges

18 the creator’s network by using the same training data as a comparison point. In this case, both networks train each other in a digital arms race, the creator becoming more capable of counterfeiting solutions and the critic becoming more discriminatory. Eventually, the creator becomes so good that the critic can no longer tell what is original.

Reinforcement learning Bio-mimicry note: Paired with problem-solving

Reinforcement Learning (or simply RL) is another subset of Machine Learning in which Neural Networks make up the building blocks of the algorithm. Hutter and Legg stated, [23], if ”Intelligence measures an agent’s ability to achieve goals in a wide range of environments,” Reinforcement Learning approaches this in baby steps, focusing on one environment at a time. When looking at Reinforcement Learning, it is essential to remember that at its core, it is an Behavioral Model, similar to Pavlovian conditioning. Everything is an action-reward pair. For example, positive reinforcement dictates that meaningful positive reward is received when a model creates the right action.

Figure 7: RL Agent (Wiki media Commons)

Figure 7, shows the Reinforcement Learning agent, environment, reward function.

19 Recommended reading • The Emporer’s New Mind, by Roger Penrose

• The Book of Why: New Science of Cause and Eﬀect, Judea Pearl Et al.

8 Consciousness

There are so many questions around consciousness that we will cover just a few ideas. Consciousness is the least understood and potentially the most intriguing aspect of intelligence. With intelligence, we can determine a level, but consciousness turns out to be much more difficult. Philosophers and scientists have been engaged in endless debates trying to define consciousness. In this section, we will attempt to explain the significant ideas. We start by determining how consciousness may differ from intelligence. One of the many difficult questions to ask is whether we can have un- conscious intelligence? Can we separate intelligence from the conscious? See figure 8. These are particularly important questions for Artificial Intelligence and humans. Harari put the importance into perspective, “Humans are in danger of losing their value because intelligence is decoupling from consciousness” [14]. Figure 8 is inspired by Christof Koch powerful intelligence-consciousness diagram [20]. The diagram attempts to shows the relationship between the two concepts, with intelligence along the x-axis and consciousness represented by the y-axis. The points represent a level of consciousness and intelligence. A lot of poetic license was applied to show the progression required to attain human level intelligence, symbolized by the label Us. This is why we, the authors, call this a wrong diagram on consciousness since it is our interpretation, e.g., it would be hard to prove whether compassion truly requires more consciousness than premonition. All current Artificial Intelligence systems remain grounded on the x-axis. Whereas all animals, including humans, are located on both the x and y-axis. The space beyond human intelligence is labelled Singularity, see Section 9 for more details. The figure shows how large the technology gap is between current artificial systems and humans. It also helps show the importance of consciousness as compared with intelligence. Traditionally, when discussing consciousness, philosophers have used the Mind-body problem. The mind-body problem attempts to define the brain as being a physical objective system and the mind as being subjective. This belief is called dualism. The question is less about the separation and more about how the mind and body connect. Why is consciousness necessary? Say we have two devices called A and B. Externally they both exhibit the same characteristics. They take some form of input data, process the data, and finally output a result. These devices function the same. Device A is designed to be functionally correct, and device B is self-aware. The difference being, B understands the data: it understands the meaning, cause, and the implications for a particular conclusion. It is aware of its existence, i.e., not mindless but conscious. To determine whether something is truly conscious, not just mimicking consciousness, some method of measurement is required. To emphasize the differences between consciousness and intelligence, John Searle created the notion of the Chinese room [15, 8]. It poses a thought experiment that acts as a counter-argument to the famous Turing Test [31]. The experiment requires that you imagine that you are in a room, and you get three batches of information, first a set of symbols (’a script’), second ’a story,’ and the third ’questions.’ You give back a bunch of symbols that are answers to the questions. Provided are a set of written rules in English, known as the ’the program.’ You have no understanding of Chinese. Chinese characters are fed into the room. You apply the rules blindly. Answers are

20 Figure 8: A wrong diagram on consciousness returned in perfect Chinese. The people outside the room can only assume that the person inside speaks fluent Chinese. From an orthogonal viewpoint, it is also worth mentioning that Cognitive Science, a discipline that includes understanding consciousness through the scientific method, is the 3rd most popular course at the University of California Berkeley, after Computer Science and Data Science. This ordering is according to Professor Paul Li, a Cognitive Scientist from U.C. Berkeley and may very well be valid across many leading universities. This is significant because, most likely, the next generation of people entering the workforce may have a deeper understanding of consciousness. Course popularity tends to be a leading indicator on what comes next. Li, in a recent talk at Stanford University, asked the question “what do we know, for sure, about consciousness?”. Using Computational-Representation Understanding Of Mind (CRUM), based on the scientific method, we know that it is most likely biological/neurological, electrical, and chemical. That is all we know, and it is not much. From a lack of fundamental knowledge, we now look at the theoretical bases around consciousness. Again, as a repeating record, this is very much a sub-set, assume many more ideas beyond the thoughts laid out below.

These are cliﬀ notes for the theoretical ideals:

• Functional basis: The ﬁrst thought about consciousness is around the functional understanding of the brain, based on the knowledge gained in Cognitive Science. As-in consciousness is just another system based out of functional components. They may be super complex components but components nevertheless. In this concept, there is a view that consciousness is a byproduct of the functional processes within the brain. Global Workspace Theory (GWT) [3] is one consciousness idea that falls under the functional concept. This theory has a close relationship with an old idea in Artiﬁcial Intelligence. Global Workspace Theory is based on

21 a centralized blackboard (workspace) concept, which holds ideas. Ideas can be both posted to the blackboard, and taken from the blackboard; some ideas appear for a short period. Ideas on the blackboard can be combined, processed, or ignored. Subsystems handle low-level ideas. The functional approach also includes the notion that animals are physical “wet” computers, processing complex data, as mentioned previously, in Section 2. The main task today is to understand how these complicated biological systems interact and function as a complex system. In summary, at a high-level consciousness is a functional system. The more we understand the functions, the closer we get to have the ability to understand and in theory create machine consciousness.

• Experiences basis: Christof Koch defines consciousness as a set of experiences. It is the historical experiences that differentiate humans from each other and machines [20]. With some humans more disposed to experiences than others. Experiences are a form of causes. Koch showed an exciting model, already introduced in Figure 8, to show the difference between consciousness and intelligence. In this figure, we have taken the liberty to show how we humans and Artificial Intelligence could possibly map out. The driver for this figure is to provide two elements, the first is an abstract view on where we are in terms of intelligence, and second is to highlight the importance of consciousness. Koch describes an experience in terms of the Integrated Information Theory (IIT) [40]:-

“consciousness is determined by the casual properties of any physical system acting upon itself. That is, consciousness is a fundamental property of any mechanism that has cause-eﬀect power upon itself.” [20, 40]

For engineers and scientists, this is probably best illustrated as a simple equation, see Figure 9. Using the equation, to make a conscious machine, we will need both simulated rules plus the ability to store and create causal eﬀects. Koch and others put forward the concept that we can never replicate biological consciousness if the method of replication is to digitally simulate the system because it requires causal powers to make consciousness conscious.

Figure 9: Causal Eﬀects Equation

• Quantum basis: As an alternative thought, Roger Penrose, a mathematical physicist, believes that “whatever consciousness is, it’s not computational”. Penrose proposed the concept

22 Orchestral Objective Reduction (OrchOR). OrchOR “is a biological philosophy of mind that postulates the consciousness originates at the quantum level inside neurons, rather than the conventional view that it is a product of connections between neurons” [33, 34]. Penrose believes microtubules, and in particular symmetric microtubules, might be more quantum driven. Where there is a chance, these structures preserve the quantum state. Penrose believes consciousness goes beyond the simple ability to compute neurons and the associated synapses. In other words, consciousness occurs at the quantum level, but beyond the standard equations. Photosynthesis is just one of the proof points that quantum mechanics is involved in biology. Penrose asks a number of questions. What turns consciousness off? How is consciousness constructed? When someone is anesthetized, how do the chemicals in the gas manage to subdue, or even turn off consciousness? These remain open questions. Is consciousness constructed with proto-consciousness elements? These proto-consciousness elements orchestrated as a group could form the consciousness of the entity. These are theoretical questions that require substantial experimentation and proof. The mind involves understanding, intelligence, and awareness. As Penrose put it, intelligence needs understanding, and understanding needs awareness. And as of today, none of these terms have a formal definition.

One last point on consciousness. There are ethical consequences in allowing artificial consciousness. Those consequences are around existential, sentient, and cognitive capacities. In other words, when is a thing, not a thing, but a sentient system with likes and dislikes? The question about sentience is a difficult question to answer but probably essential if we need to go beyond basic intelligence. An important use for consciousness is to enable conscience, i.e., determining what is right or wrong. Final thought, it is generally considered a very bad idea to give Artificial Intelligence emotion. What happens when the system gets angry?

Recommended reading • The Feeling Of Life Itself, by Christof Koch • Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow, by Yuval Noah Harari • Novacene - The Coming Age of Hyperintelligence, by James Lovelock • Consciousness as a Social Brain, by Michael S. A. Graziano

9 Exceeding human intelligence

Now we need to discuss exceeding our intelligence. This area comes with both optimism and concern. Surprisingly, it was John von Neumann, who created the now infamous term Technological Singularity [42]. Singularity is where technology irreversibly exceeds human capability, see Figure 10. Singularity could be achieved either by constructing an equivalent digital system or by some form of augmentation. Specifically for intelligence, this is known as superintelligence and hyperintelligence. Both changes could occur under human guidance. There are at least two other methods of exceeding human intelligence, namely evolution or external influence. Evolution does not stop [6], it continues. Humans are just an interlude in the process, and assuming we are an endpoint would be an error. The fourth possibility, external influence, such as extraterrestrial aliens, is outside the scope of this paper.

23 Figure 10: Scala Nuturae ”Ladder of Being” (plus poetic license)

As already mentioned, there is a strong belief that conscious superintelligence is impossible if the technology follows a simulation path. The problem is having a non-conscious superintelligence that exhibits no conscience is potentially dangerous. Harari describes an Artificial Intelligent system that takes over the world (and beyond), and its only objective is computing π [14]. Using endless resources, and removing all obstacles, with no awareness of right or wrong, the Artificial Intelligence takes over the world by continuously consuming resources to feed a pointless calculation. It has no bad intentions, it is simply too focused on its goal to take other factors into account. If some form of Artificial Intelligence does emerge, is it more likely to be by accident due to system complexity. The system could attain a level of complexity great enough to allow for the emergence of intelligence. Emergence would not be manufactured on purpose but would appear by default naturally.

Superintelligence There are two main methods to build a system capable of superintelligence [5]. The ﬁrst method is to create a system that is so complex in both knowledge and sophistication that intelligence hopefully appears. The other process involves transferring, or copying, an existing biological intelligence in the hope to jump-start superintelligence. The jump-start consists of reading and copying neurons and synapses. Koch pointed out, at the current rate of technological advancement, we should be capable of

24 simulating a mouse brain within 5-years [20]. The Blue Brain/Spinnaker project is on course to achieve this goal with a massive parallel spiking neuron machine [29]. Even for this relatively simple task, a device will have to simulate 100 million neurons. As Koch also points out, this is merely a functional model with no consciousness or awareness, i.e., a zombie intelligence.

Hyperintelligence Hyperintelligence is a concept where humans are augmented with technology to enhance their intelligence. James Lovelock, the originator of the Gaia theory, believes strongly that the solution to global warming and world issues is to increase human intelligence by augmentation [25]. In recent years, we have seen a rapid increase in the sophistication of Brain Computer Interfacing (BCI) in both reading and writing. For the intrusive devices, they are implanted directly into the brain, connecting to speciﬁc neurons. These devices have been used on people with some form of cognitive disability, and by stimulating speciﬁc regions of the brain neural pathways can be re-routed. This uses a biological mechanism called plasticity, which literally teaches the brain to bypass the damaged areas. Augmentation could also take out aspects of our humanity. Augmentation could involve getting rid of the drive to explore or travel. It could lowered respiration to cut down on CO2, or even make us all vegetarians to indirectly limit methane production. Companies such-as Neuralink see this as an opportunity to speed-up human-computer communication by allowing direct connection, i.e., opening the door for augmentation and hyperintelligence.

Recommended reading • Superintelligence - Path, Dangers, Strategies, by Nick Bostrom

• The Major Transitions in Evolution Revisited, by Brett Calcott et al.

• Human compatible, by Stuart Russell

• Novacene - The Coming Age of Hyperintelligence, by James Lovelock

• The Feeling Of Life Itself, by Christof Koch

10 Control of intelligence

We have intelligence and multiple individual nodes of intelligence, i.e., animals and artiﬁcial. How do we control these nodes to do something useful or make sure they behave correctly? Correct behavior may not always be of paramount importance, overridden by basic survival instincts. In animal intelligence, survival tends to have the highest priority. We humans have religion, laws, ethics, morals, and social norms to ensure compliance with society. A selﬁsh motivator is applied, providing a reward for obedience: more money, promotion, or high status. And, if we do not comply, depending on severity, repercussions occur, e.g., isolation of an animal from the pack. For most animals, and more so for altricial species, conformance training is learned when young. For example, maturer dogs make sure the younger ones are in check. Dog owners are very familiar with this concept, so they introduce younger dogs to an environment with older dogs. When dogs mature to adulthood, without this social training, they lack some of the social skills, i.e., they do not comply with the social etiquette of dogs.

25 Constraining machine learning The introduction mostly covered animal control, so what about Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning? What are the control mechanisms available for artificial systems? What are the potential repercussions of non-control? The Machine Learning subject performs two significant tasks. The first, as a pattern match-er using some form of correlation, i.e., deep learning. Second, Machine Learning strives towards an optimized goal using some form of metric or reward: reinforcement learning. Both are somewhat useful within narrow problem spaces. The exciting part is when the system changes from perception to decision-making. Perception is about determining an environment, e.g., the orange is in front of the pineapple, or the bed is in a hotel. Perception is relatively safe since the consequences can be limited. By contrast, decision-making is about interacting within the physical world (for example, autonomous vehicles). Decision-making is inherently more dangerous since there are human implications. Stuart Russell in Human Compatible - Artificial Intelligence and the problem of Control, and others, have identified this transition as being a dangerous one. There is concern that blind belief in reinforcement learning with its endless pursuit of simple attainable goals, might lead to problems. The real world environment is so much more complicated [44], i.e., it has humans in it. For example, Russell [37] points out potential danger if the system identifies protecting its kill-switch as part of the optimization of a metric/measure, or us as blocking access to the reward. Both examples would cause humans significant problems.

What are the mechanisms to control Machine Learning?

• Testing. Vigorous testing is the easiest way to control a Machine Learning model. Correc- tions are made to the training data if the model goes awry. The disadvantage is that we cannot handle every test case and scenario— there is a strong linkage between testing and training data.

• Boundary limitation. We can set boundary limitations for the Machine Learning systems, i.e., no dialing volume to 11. These are simple mechanisms that narrow the operating range. The disadvantage of boundary limitation is that not all environments have precise operating ranges, and maybe there are rare instances that require “11” to work.

• Parallel modelling involves a simple duplicate functional model that checks the more complex Machine Learning model. If there is a noticeable diﬀerence, then a contention error is raised. By judging the contention, a decision on the right course of action can take place. The disadvantage of parallel modelling is like the previous two examples, it is, again, only suitable for more straightforward problems with an abundance of computational resources.

• Multiple Machine Learning systems. N-version programming may provide a method of control. Either using the same input data or diﬀerent input data. A ﬁnal decision is made by each system voting, and the majority wins. The voting method has resilience since it handles a wrongly trained model, i.e., a Byzantine-style algorithm.

• Explainable AI. Another method to help control Machine Learning systems is to have a strategy to understand them. This strategy is essential to understand how conclusions come about in a network. This strategy is vital to avoid bad biasing. Note as previously mentioned, there is also good biasing when you want the system to be deliberately biased.

26 As a counter point Julian Miller, Computer Scientist at York University, stated that this method may act against the goal of Artificial Intelligence, as compared to Machine Learn- ing since we find it difficult to understand our own decision making. If we want to create something genuinely artificially intelligent, it may be too difficult to explain.

• Inverse Reinforcement Learning. As described by Russell, is when you alter the reward mechanism to be more oriented around humans. Where the reward is based on human preference to produce provably beneficial Artificial Intelligent systems. “. . . machines will need to learn more about what we want from observations of the choices we make and how we make them. Machines designed in this way will defer to humans; they will ask for permission; they will act cautiously when guidance is unclear, and they will allow themselves to be switched off ” [37]. In other words, building mathematical models that can capture, understand, and work with human intent. A model could require some form of Explainable AI.

Today Artiﬁcial Intelligence and Machine Learning are comparatively basic, i.e., narrow. It is highly likely that the next generation of systems will be much more capable, and with that capability comes the requirement to have more control. Is it essential that Artiﬁcial Intelligent systems fall under the human control mechanisms, e.g., ethics, laws, religion?

Explainability in Deep Learning Over the last few years, explainability has become the forefront of recent Deep Learning conversa- tions. Not all Deep Learning architectures can be the same, and some are more explainable than others. Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) is the worst in terms of explainability but the most popular in terms of ease of development. These two factors probably go together. Explainable AI refers to decoding the black-box that is Deep Learning. The issue is that the architectures are so massive and removed from human involvement that they are unreadable. There have been some methodologies to address this. Heat-mapping is one aspect that highlights specific areas in the images of a dataset that co-relate to high-impact weights in Neural Networks. Explainability has been one of the significant factors impacting the adoption of Deep Learning. The lack of transparency of most Deep Learning models means that any human-involved interaction is going to be difficult. This difficulty is incredibly real in the medical industry. Two metrics help in explainability, at least in terms of performance. These are the sensitivity factors that are specific to any model. Sensitivity refers to the proportion of correctly diagnosed positives, e.g., people identified as having cancer who do. Specificity when it relates to the correct negatives, e.g., people diagnosed as cancer- free who are. These metrics aid in the adoption as the worst thing an algorithm can do in medicine is give a false-negative answer.

Recommended reading • Human Compatible, by Stuart Russell

• Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow, by Yuval Noah Harari

• Superintelligence - Path, Dangers, Strategies, by Nick Bostrom

27 11 Wrong Numbers

We have finally got to the wrong numbers section, and this, in part, is inspired by a paper written by Roman V Yampolskiy, titled Why We Do Not Evolve Software? Analysis of Evolutionary Algorithms [46]. If we want to build a human simulator from the ground up, using fundamental principles, i.e., tabula rasa or clean slate, what are the crucial numbers?. We start with a premise p′ (p prime). p′ states that “soon we will be able to create an intelligent machine that has sufficient computational power to simulate all the evolutionary processes required to produced human intelligence”. p′ depends largely upon significant advancements in computing. The technological advances today must continue at a similar pace for the next coming decades. Now, the vital question to ask, what is the perceived computational gap between today’s computer systems and human-level intelligence?. To help answer that question, we start right from the beginning, see Figure 11.

Quantity Measurement Age of the Cosmos 13.8 Billion years Age of the Earth 3.7 Billion years Age of Life 3 Billion years Age of Humans 300 Thousand years

Figure 11: Basic numbers

Figure 11, shows the basic cosmological and biological numbers. What are the next numbers of interest? The number of generations from the dawn of life is estimated to be around 1012. The total number of world neurons could in the order 1025 [46]. Computation requirement is from 1031 to 1044 Flops (Floating Point Operations per Second). The entire Earth’s DNA storage is around 1.32 × 1037 bytes. To help put this into perspective, a gram of DNA contains about 455 exabytes of data. The cellular transcribe is about 1015 yottaNOPS. That is about 1022 times that of a Fugaku supercomputer. Finally, an estimated compute time of roughly 3 billion years. All of these aspects require a high-level method for evolution that involves a combination of convergent and contingent systems [6]. Up to now, the Earth is the only planet that is known to sustain intelligent life, so the probability is 1 in 26.1 × 1021 planets that intelligent life occurred, i.e., the Fermi paradox. The simulator will have to simulate neurons. What are the computing options? A simple neuron is 1 × 103 Flops, Hodgkin-Huxley (Electrophysiological model) is 1, 200 × 103 Flops, and the multicompartmental model is 1, 200 × 106 − 107 Flops. A brief reminder: this is all at the 1025 neuron scale. Currently, the fastest supercomputers range from 60 to 537 petaFlops [26]. In raw ﬂoating-point performance, the mobile phone network or even the cryptocurrency mining community may exceed this number. The current storage capacity required to run the simulation is 1021 times that of the top 4 supercomputers. If Moore’s law continues, it will take roughly 6.7-years to increase the computation by a power of 1. After 100-years at that rate, it would not be enough to close the gap. Even-if we created specialist acceleration hardware, and optimized software, it would only add a few more orders of magnitude. From the evidence presented, traditional technology will fail to reach human intelligence in the next 50-years. There are other possibilities, such as Quantum Evolutionary Computation that may have the potential to create the equivalent of human intelligence using brute force computation. This technology is just too new to predict with any certainty that it will lead to success.

28 Recommended reading • The Major Transitions in Evolution Revisited, by Brett Calcott et al.

12 Conclusion

It would be easy for us now to conclude that intelligence is simply X or Y . We hope, by now, that you realize intelligence is a highly complicated subject, with no absolutes. Intelligence is interwoven into human culture, language, and being. There are many creative theories, but missing is a set of fundamental agreed-upon definitions and metrics. Removing highly pruned problem spaces, such as mathematics, the block world, and image recognition, it may be impossible to predict complex problem spaces with only historical information. Induction relies upon uniformity of nature, the law of nature. Even when taking our own experiences into account, the past is seldom a good predictor of the future. Nature is just too complicated. The big question is whether an artificial model could fit into a universal law of regular causality, but as yet nothing has been proven. Figure 12 shows the various options for intelligent problem domains. It is based partly on a list provided by Stuart Russell [37]. Each problem maps onto the categories shown in the figure. These categories can be more or less difficult to be implemented in artificial or biological systems. Intelligence must be able to adapt to changing environments; it must require only limited examples before full recognition can occur. The system should not require 10,000 hours of learning to become a grandmaster of pattern recognition. If we mimic intelligence, is there a threshold we reach that makes it impossible to distinguish it from real intelligence? Is the only solution to copy an existing high intelligence, i.e., Socratic recollection?. Or even build intelligence from the ground-up from basic principles, i.e., tabular rasa? Is intelligence even in the realm of our understanding and capability? May be intelligence was formed after 3 billion years of evolution. Or is it a set of quantum equations yet to be discovered? Biological neurons operate mostly as feed-backward systems. Feed-backwards is different from the majority of artificial systems that rely on feed-forward communication. For neuroscientists, neuromorphic technology opens up the possibility of building closer to biological systems, i.e., using feed-backward connections. Potentially opening up the possibility to explore more difficult subjects such-as consciousness. There are so many topics not covered in this text. These include some of our favourites: Evolutionary Algorithms and things like emergent behaviors in analog robotics. However, hopefully, we did share enough to make clear two things:

1. There is a lot of research and philosophy on biological intelligence, and now equally as much focused on the artiﬁcial varieties.

2. There is much that we do not know. Focusing on one specialized subset of Artiﬁcial Intelli- gence should not mean that we put blinders on to all other possibilities.

There is excitement in Deep Learning and other bio-mimetic systems and there is still more to be learned in these fields. However, there is a distinct possibility that Artificial Intelligence would be unrecognizable without effort to make it intelligible and that focusing on one sub-field is not the ”correct” path. Another important aspect of this methodology is that trying to replicate something that has as many known flaws as Human Intelligence is akin to tape-recording a radio-broadcast. We have many species on this planet that exhibit intelligent behavior, and we, for the most part, ignore them simply because we do not have established ways of communication.

29 “On the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much – the wheel, New York, wars and so on – whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man – for precisely the same reasons.” Douglas Adams [1]

We cannot communicate with other biological intelligent forms, so how can we plan for a fundamentally diﬀerent form of intelligence? More than likely, Artiﬁcial Intelligence will arrive slowly, be massively distributed, and will be unrecognizable. Before that happens, we have a lot of time to practice communicating with other humans and other biological intelligent forms.

30 Figure 12: Problem domain landscape, based on Stuart Russell’s list [37]

In-line with non-bio-mimicry, non-von Neumann machines, one topic worth diving into more is

31 the role quantum physics plays in computers and consciousness. However, with quantum physics and minor variations of the observable within our thought processes, there is some deviation from pure causality that could be called free-will. Quantum computing is still new enough that most companies, even if they have built a verified quantum computer, do not know what to do with it. Quantum computing is an aspect that we think may genuinely unlock the potential of Artificial Intelligence. Quantum computers are one example of making intelligence that is radically different than our own. Another aspect of intelligence that is not being researched enough (and only briefly mentioned in this paper) is social and emotional intelligence. There is some work going on in Human-Machine Interaction groups, but most of it is through user design/behavioral style observation. Aspects like the theory of mind, understanding non-verbal intent, and just general conversational skills are still largely to be explored. That is more than likely going to be the next big step forward into what is called Artificial Intelligence. Lastly, is it possible to have intelligence without consciousness? If so, is this not a dangerous path to take without the necessary safeguards in place? In the end, these systems will probably have to make conscious decisions involving conscience. This leads to its own problems - such as what might the legal standing of an Artificial Intelligence be? Is it the same as a human or better? Responsible for its own actions or not?

Acknowledgements

Each paper is only as good as the reviewers. We wish to personally thank the following people: Rex St. John, Ada Coghen, Jeremy Johnson, Wendy Elsasser, and Paul Gleichauf for their participation and thoughts. Also, massive thank you to all the great authors we referenced throughout this primer.

References

[1] Douglas Adams. The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. Pan Books, 1979.

[2] Douglas Adams. Life, the Universe, and Everything. Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. Pan Books, 1982.

[3] Bernard Baars. Global workspace theory of consciousness: Toward a cognitive neuroscience of human experience. Progress in brain research, 150:45–53, 02 2005.

[4] Margaret A. Boden. Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms. Routledge, USA, 2 edition, 2003.

[5] Nick Bostrom. Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford University Press, Inc., USA, 1st edition, 2014.

[6] B. Calcott, K. Sterelny, D.W. McShea, C. Simpson, S. Okasha, P. Godfrey-Smith, P. Lyon, B. Kerr, J. Nahum, P. Rainey, et al. The Major Transitions in Evolution Revisited. Vienna Series in Theoretical Biology. MIT Press, 2011.

[7] Fran¸cois Chollet. On the measure of intelligence, 2019.

[8] David Cole. The chinese room argument. In Edward N. Zalta, editor, The Stanford Ency- clopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, spring 2020 edition, 2020.

32 [9] M. Du Sautoy. The Creativity Code: Art and Innovation in the Age of AI. HarperCollins Publishers Australia, 2019.

[10] Dennis Heimbigner et. al. A federated architecture for information management, 1985.

[11] Hannah Fry. How did a computer beat a chess grandmaster? NPR Science Friday, 9 2018. Accessed: 2020/05/01.

[12] Maria Carla Galavotti. Wesley salmon. In Edward N. Zalta, editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, fall 2018 edition, 2018.

[13] Peter Godfrey-Smith. The mind of an octopus eight smart limbs plus a big brain add up to a weird and wondrous kind of intelligence, 2017. Accessed: 2020-04-09.

[14] Yuval Noah Harari. Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow. Harper, 1st edition, 2017.

[15] Larry Hauser. Chinese room argument, 2020. Accessed: 2020-04-08.

[16] Leah Henderson. The problem of induction. In Edward N. Zalta, editor, The Stanford Ency- clopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, spring 2020 edition, 2020.

[17] Tonya Hines. Anatomy of the brain, 2018. Accessed: 2020-06-16.

[18] David Hume. An enquiry concerning human understanding. The Monist, 11(n/a):312, 1901.

[19] Tero Karras, Samuli Laine, Miika Aittala, Janne Hellsten, Jaakko Lehtinen, and Timo Aila. Analyzing and improving the image quality of stylegan, 2019.

[20] Christof Koch. The Feeling of Life Itself: Why Consciousness Is Widespread but Can’t Be Computed. The MIT Press. MIT Press, 2019.

[21] Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoﬀrey E Hinton. Imagenet classiﬁcation with deep convolutional neural networks. In F. Pereira, C. J. C. Burges, L. Bottou, and K. Q. Weinberger, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 25, pages 1097–1105. Curran Associates, Inc., 2012.

[22] Roman Kucera. The truth behind facebook ai inventing a new language. towards Data Science, 08 2017. Accessed: 2020/05/01.

[23] Shane Legg and Marcus Hutter. A collection of deﬁnitions of intelligence, 2007.

[24] Hadley Leggett. Clever crows prove aesop’s fable is more than ﬁction. Wired, 08 2009. Accessed: 2020/04/10.

[25] James Lovelock. Novacene - The Coming Age of Hyperintelligence. The MIT Press. MIT Press, 2019.

[26] Satoshi Matsuoka. Tweet: We just announced the fugaku config at a press briefing. the whole system is 158,976 a64fx nodes, and running at 2.2ghz peak performances for 64bitfp/32bitfp/16bitfp/8bitint are 537peta/1.07exa/2.15exa/4.30exa (fl)ops respectively, as well as the total memory bw 163 petabyte/s., May 2020. Last accessed 15 May 2020.

[27] Kathleen McAuliﬀe. If modern humans are so smart, why are our brains shrinking?, 2011. Accessed: 2020-04-09.

33 [28] Cade Metz. A breakthrough for a.i. technology: Passing an 8th-grade science test. The New York Times, 9 2019. Accessed: 2020/05/01. [29] Sebastian Moss. The creation of the electronic brain. Data Center Dynamics, 01 2019. Ac- cessed: 2020/05/11. [30] Christopher Moyer. How google’s alphago beat a go world champion. The Atlantic, 3 2016. Accessed: 2020/05/01. [31] Graham Oppy and David Dowe. The turing test. In Edward N. Zalta, editor, The Stanford En- cyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, spring 2019 edition, 2019. [32] Judea Pearl and Dana Mackenzie. The Book of Why: The New Science of Cause and Effect. Basic Books, Inc., USA, 1st edition, 2018. [33] Roger Penrose. The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics. Oxford University Press, Inc., USA, 1989. [34] Roger Penrose and Lex Fridman. Consciousness is not a computation (roger penrose) ai podcast clips, 2020. [35] Plato. The Republic. Art-type edition. New York : Books, Inc., 1943. [36] Michael W. Reimann, Max Nolte, Martina Scolamiero, Katharine Turner, Rodrigo Perin, Giuseppe Chindemi, Pawe lD lotko, Ran Levi, Kathryn Hess, and Henry Markram. Cliques of neurons bound into cavities provide a missing link between structure and function. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 11:48, 2017. [37] Stuart Russell. Human Compatible: Artificial Intelligence and the Problem of Control. Penguin Publishing Group, 2019. [38] Stuart Russell and Peter Norvig. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Prentice Hall Press, USA, 4th edition, 2020. [39] Oscar Schwartz. In 2016, microsoft’s racist chatbot revealed the dangers of online conversation. IEEE Spectrum, 11 2019. Accessed: 2020/05/03. [40] Giulio Tononi. Integrated information theory of consciousness: An updated account. Archives italiennes de biologie, 150:56–90, 06 2012. [41] Allen M. Turing. Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, LIX(236):433–460, 10 1950. [42] Stanislaw Ulam. Tribute to john von neumann, 1958. Accessed: 2020-06-16. [43] Manuela Veloso. Ai classical deterministic planning – representation and search, 2009. Accessed 2020-05-29. [44] James Vincent. Openai has published the text-generating ai it said was too dangerous to share. The Verge, 11 2019. Accessed: 2020/04/28. [45] Siddharth Vodnala. Iq test for artificial intelligence systems. WSU Insider, 12 2019. Accessed: 2020/05/01. [46] Roman V Yampolskiy. Why we do not evolve software? analysis of evolutionary algorithms, 2018. Accessed: 2020-04-19.