The argument put forward on Artificial Intelligence especially by A.M. Turing COMPUTING MACHINERY AND INTELLIGENCE is a strong one and most convincing. Going by the Scientific Modern Conception of the mind, one would support the reality of Artificial Intelligence. Going by the words given, ‘the mechanical view of the mind’ one can use the arguments given, to support there being of an Artificial Intelligence. It all starts with the question whether a machine can think. The word think it turns out can be put or defined in very many ways. It can lead to a lot of ambiguity and confusion and therefore a different approach but that which can relate to thinking is used. The result of this is the ‘imitation game’ as put forward by (Samuel Butler, Erewhon 1965). It is one that involves three people, a man (A), a woman (B), and an interrogator (C). The interrogator cannot in any way have an event in which he or she can have an encounter with A or B and therefore know their gender so he/she only knows them as X and Y and communication is in fact by use of a teleprinter. X and Y can represent any of them but in this case representing man and woman respectively. Here, the interrogator should know who is who by asking questions and either should reply. C can then ask X to give the length of his hair. (Samuel Butler, Erewhon 1965). It is A’s intention to deceive C so will say his hair is long and typically C should conclude that X is B which is false. But B who is now known as Y to C is out to help out C know the truth by telling the truth such as ‘No! That is a lie and I am the woman.’ But that might not do much as X can also do the same thing. So it will be hard for the interrogator to know the truth. The concept of a machine thinking can then be put thus, ‘ What will happen when a machine takes the part of A in this game ? ‘ Will the interrogator decide wrongly as often when the game is played like this as he does when the game is played between a man and a woman ? These questions replace our original, ‘ Can machines think ? ‘ (Samuel Butler, Erewhon 1965) This question can then be replaced with the latter one and it can now be said that this new problem goes to show that intellectual capacities of man and machine are almost the same. One can argue strongly against the machine especially on the capability of being able to answer such an interrogatory question such as ‘Please write me a sonnet on the subject of the Port Bridge’ but it should not be so as one cannot compare the overwhelming capability the human mind has over the computer as has the airplane racing man. They stand no chance but are performing the tasks given either way and so the same should be given when it comes to thought. If a digital computer can give an answer on a natural question rather than on the behavior of man it should be given a chance just as the thought of engineers being able to clone a person one day.
There are several arguments against this by people. They go as thus, that one, theology objects this by saying thinking is only for the human immortal soul. That is cannot happen elsewhere. This can be countered by saying that since thinking was put in humans by God, He if you choose to think so enable machines to think. The ‘Heads in the Sand’ Objection where people dread the thought of thinking machines is not a substantial argument and cannot therefore be refuted. Godel’s theorem, and shows that in any sufficiently powerful logical system statements can be formulated which can neither be proved nor disproved within the system, unless possibly the system itself is inconsistent. (Samuel Butler, Erewhon 1965) It should not be disapproved that digital computers which meet the standards of a logical system can make an error just as much as thinking human makes errors is the argument from the ‘thinking machine side’. There are those that argue that a machine would never be capable of thought, exude emotions and so on in what we call The Argument from Consciousness. This is an argument that denies how valid the imitation test is. One bearing such an argument should be made to go through the solipsist’s point of view and one would most probably accept the imitation test which would nullify their argument. Many other arguments can be presented but cannot do much to destabilize this fact as it is as viable as is the conviction.
Computer Ethics CE is another part in the computing world that has been talked about. It is relatively new to us and has not therefore been given the attention it deserves. Laws have been made on how empirical behavior should be and treated but none have been given CE. Two problems challenge these laws. CE problems not involving human beings and those with a ludic nature. It can be claimed that there are three central ethical views which have developed in concert with the scientific world view; they are: Contractualism, Utilitarianism or Consequentialism, and Deontology, or Kantianism.
Contractualism and deontologism have both been consistently tried out and not have been able to solve CE problems without difficulty and are but eventually inadequate. Contractualism is a form of ethic that is based on a central concept of self-interest. As an ethic of this manner, it focuses its analysis on the empirical physical nature of action and choice, which are taken in understanding as what happens from human interests to moral values, and thus shift the attention from a purely agent approach.
Utilitaricanism is a theory that is concerned action, intrinsically and social in nature. It is also a form of ethic that is based on a central concept of self-interest. As an ethic of this manner, it focuses its analysis on the empirical physical nature of action and choice, which are taken in understanding as what happens from human interests to moral values, and thus shift the attention from a purely agent approach. The Consequentialist position is often approached on moral problems in CE with its theoretical implications. It is used knowingly adopting some pragmatic version of the MINMAX and Golden rules. It does not have ready-to –use programmes which can be applied in the context of CE that deliver expected results, on the more postive way.
Deontology/Kantianismis not appropriate for CE as it has rigid universal maxims and duty-based ethics. Even though, it can handle the CE problem since both Kantian imperatives apply only to anthropocentric contexts. The Deontological approach is affected by hackers who do not understand what the result of their work does independently of their technical competence. This is from the analysis of what they have to say to justify their actions. The Kanitan universal maxim supports that the interaction between the agent and the sorrounding society, or even the simple possibility of such an interaction is more important than the what the individual agen becomes or does in his autonomy, and quite irrespective of external factors, as may be the case in Virtue Ethics.
None can be said to be the most suitable information system as they are not aligned with different world that is CE. Contractualism and deontologism have both been consistently tried out and not have been able to solve CE problems without difficulty and are but eventually inadequate. But of course Contractualism would be more suibable than Deontologism as it does not go by the inflexible universal maxims and duty-based ethics. If Deontologism, Consequentialism and Contractualism are not ready-to-use programmes, which need to be only slightly recompiled to become applicable in the context of CE and deliver the expected results, on the more positive side we may wish radically to re-consider the action-oriented nature of CE itself.
There are four forms of privacy, physical privacy, mental privacy, decisional privacy and informational privacy. First one has to understand that matters privacy do not concern an individual’s action. This is because it is taken as a class of objects as patients. What is important here is the information. What concerns people now is the information of the essence especially referring to a person’s integrity and will being. But to add to that, privacy is not only an individual’s concern but can also be a group’s concern such as a corporation or a nation since what they are, their nature is fully constituted by the information entity they are. In the web that is made up of this information, the process becomes complex process of data input, output, producing, collection, processing and consuming. Various things can be done to this data to make strategic decisions on individuals. It is at this point that the information privacy becomes urgent. Problems concerning privacy will include such things as being somehow embarrassing, shameful, ominous, threatening, unpopular or harmful for S’ life and well-being, yet this is very misleading, for the nature of the information in question is quite irrelevant. Peoples main concern in information privacy is on the basis of a logic ownership and right to do whatever so wishes their information rather than a lack of care and respect for the individual. It also has an instrumental value whose implication is that a person has exclusive ownership and unique control of his/her information. But to be able to help solve the problem, it has been put forward that agent treat information with respect as they are treating the person himself rather than take them as information entities or packets of information. This is because private information multiplied and realesed to the world would be tranformed to a dead piece of the owner released to the world. Privacy is therefore but the difence ones integrity.
Legitimate intrusion by the government into private life would be if the agent teated one’s information with respect and put measures to treat private information as if they were treating human beings themselves. Also note that cases in which privacy and confidentiality are broken because the information in question is legally or ethically significant are cases which society may agree to tolerate for example we may all agree that in special circumstances bank accounts may be checked, computer files searched, or telephones bugged. The interesting point, for a theoretical foundation of information ethics, is not that information may have some legal consequences.
This surveillance will impact on free-speech directly by silencing it if agents treat those who hold free speech harshly. It will also impact it indirectly whereby if content on free speech will be cautiously given. Again specifications are given that for example surveillance is for monitoring of other activities other than free speech it will not affect it much.
References
Samuel Butler, Erevhon, London, 1865. Chapters 23, 24, 25, The Book of the ,IIachines.
