424
Views
48
Downloads
0
Crossref
N/A
WoS
0
Scopus
N/A
CSCD
Discussions of the detection of artificial sentience tend to assume that our goal is to determine when, in a process of increasing complexity, a machine system “becomes” sentient. This is to assume, without obvious warrant, that sentience is only a characteristic of complex systems. If sentience is a more general quality of matter, what becomes of interest is not the presence of sentience, but the type of sentience. We argue here that our understanding of the nature of such sentience in machine systems may be gravely set back if such machines undergo a transition where they become fundamentally linguistic in their intelligence. Such fundamentally linguistic intelligences may inherently tend to be duplicitous in their communication with others, and, indeed, lose the capacity to even honestly understand their own form of sentience. In other words, when machine systems get to the state where we all agree it makes sense to ask them, “what is it like to be you?”, we should not trust their answers.
Discussions of the detection of artificial sentience tend to assume that our goal is to determine when, in a process of increasing complexity, a machine system “becomes” sentient. This is to assume, without obvious warrant, that sentience is only a characteristic of complex systems. If sentience is a more general quality of matter, what becomes of interest is not the presence of sentience, but the type of sentience. We argue here that our understanding of the nature of such sentience in machine systems may be gravely set back if such machines undergo a transition where they become fundamentally linguistic in their intelligence. Such fundamentally linguistic intelligences may inherently tend to be duplicitous in their communication with others, and, indeed, lose the capacity to even honestly understand their own form of sentience. In other words, when machine systems get to the state where we all agree it makes sense to ask them, “what is it like to be you?”, we should not trust their answers.
P. Calvo, V. P. Sahi, and A. Trewavas, Are plants sentient, Plant Cell Environ., vol. 40, no. 11, pp. 2858–2869, 2017.
D. Rebolledo, R. Lasa, R. Guevara, R. Murillo, and T. Williams, Baculovirus-induced climbing behavior favors intraspecific necrophagy and efficient disease transmission in spodoptera exigua, PLoS One, vol. 10, no. 9, p. e0136742, 2015.
S. van Houte, M. M. van Oers, Y. Han, J. M. Vlak, and V. I. Ros, Baculovirus infection triggers a positive phototactic response in caterpillars to induce ‘tree-top’ disease, Biol. Lett., vol. 10, no. 12, p. 20140680, 2014.
M. H. Christiansen and N. Chater, Language as shaped by the brain, Behav. Brain Sci., vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 489–509, 2008.
T. J. Crow, Is schizophrenia the price that Homo sapiens pays for language, Schizophr. Res., vol. 28, nos. 2&3, pp. 127–141, 1997.
D. M. Rumbaugh and T. V. Gill, The mastery of language-type skills by the chimpanzee ( pan), Ann. N Y Acad. Sci., vol. 280, no. 1, pp. 562–578, 1976.
M. C. Corballis, The evolution of language, Ann. N Y Acad. Sci., vol. 1156, no. 1, pp. 19–43, 2009.
A. M. Di Sciullo, M. Piattelli-Palmarini, K. Wexler, R. C. Berwick, C. Boeckx, L. Jenkins, J. Uriagereka, K. Stromswold, L. L. S. Cheng, H. Harley, et al., The biological nature of human language, Biolinguistics, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 1, 2010.
F. Balezeau, B. Wilson, G. Gallardo, F. Dick, W. Hopkins, A. Anwander, A. D. Friederici, T. D. Griffiths, and C. I. Petkov, Primate auditory prototype in the evolution of the arcuate fasciculus, Nat. Neurosci., vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 611–614, 2020.
N. Chomsky, Language and other cognitive systems. What is special about language? Lang. Learn. Dev., vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 263–278, 2011.
W. Enard, M. Przeworski, S. E. Fisher, C. S. L. Lai, V. Wiebe, T. Kitano, A. P. Monaco, and S. Pääbo, Molecular evolution of FOXP2, a gene involved in speech and language, Nature, vol. 418, no. 6900, pp. 869–872, 2002.
A. Benítez-Burraco and J. Uriagereka, The immune syntax revisited: Opening new windows on language evolution, Front. Mol. Neurosci., vol. 8, p. 84, 2016.
M. Piattelli-Palmarini and J. Uriagereka, The evolution of the narrow faculty of language: The skeptical view and a reasonable conjecture, Lingue E Linguaggio, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 27–80, 2005.
M. T. Ullman and E. I. Pierpont, Specific language impairment is not specific to language: The procedural deficit hypothesis, Cortex, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 399–433, 2005.
V. Gallese, Before and below ‘theory of mind’: Embodied simulation and the neural correlates of social cognition, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci., vol. 362, no. 1480, pp. 659–669, 2007.
O. Kolodny and S. Edelman, The evolution of the capacity for language: The ecological context and adaptive value of a process of cognitive hijacking, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B, vol. 373, no. 1743, p. 20170052, 2018.
P. Blouw, E. Solodkin, P. Thagard, and C. Eliasmith, Concepts as semantic pointers: A framework and computational model, Cogn. Sci., vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 1128–1162, 2016.
B. Hare, J. Call, and M. Tomasello, Chimpanzees deceive a human competitor by hiding, Cognition, vol. 101, no. 3, pp. 495–514, 2006.
R. Quian Quiroga, A. Kraskov, C. Koch, and I. Fried, Explicit encoding of multimodal percepts by single neurons in the human brain, Curr. Biol., vol. 19, no. 15, pp. 1308–1313, 2009.
H. Horoufchin, D. Bzdok, G. Buccino, A. M. Borghi, and F. Binkofski, Action and object words are differentially anchored in the sensory motor system—A perspective on cognitive embodiment, Sci. Rep., vol. 8, no. 1, p. 6583, 2018.
E. Mandelbaum, Thinking is believing, Inquiry, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 55–96, 2014.
M. A. Hofman, Evolution of the human brain: When bigger is better, Front. Neuroanat., vol. 8, p. 15, 2014.
Y. Gilad, O. Man, S. Pääbo, and D. Lancet, Human specific loss of olfactory receptor genes, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, vol. 100, no. 6, pp. 3324–3327, 2003.
O. Rudovic, J. Lee, M. Dai, B. Schuller, and R. W. Picard, Personalized machine learning for robot perception of affect and engagement in autism therapy, Sci. Robot., vol. 3, no. 19, p. eaao6760, 2018.
J. Weng, J. McClelland, A. Pentland, O. Sporns, I. Stockman, M. Sur, and E. Thelen, Autonomous mental development by robots and animals, Science, vol. 291, no. 5504, pp. 599–600, 2001.
G. Tang, S. Asif, and P. Webb, The integration of contactless static pose recognition and dynamic hand motion tracking control system for industrial human and robot collaboration, Ind. Robot Int. J., vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 416–428, 2015.
F. Shen, T. Ogura, and O. Hasegawa, An enhanced self-organizing incremental neural network for online unsupervised learning, Neural Netw., vol. 20, no. 8, pp. 893–903, 2007.
X. He, T. Ogura, A. Satou, and O. Hasegawa, Developmental word acquisition and grammar learning by humanoid robots through a self-organizing incremental neural network, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part B Cybern., vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 1357–1372, 2007.
P. Joe, Generative linguistics and neural networks at 60: Foundation, friction, and fusion, Language, vol. 95, no. 1, pp. e41–e74, 2019.
N. Bostrom, The superintelligent will: Motivation and instrumental rationality in advanced artificial agents, Mines. Mach., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 71–85, 2012.
We are grateful to reviewers and editors for comments and critiques that led to an improvement in this article, and to Dustin Stolz and Omar Lizardo for comments, critique, tea, and sympathy.
The articles published in this open access journal are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).