Answers.Body: <p>AI is "deterministic" in the sense that it follows exactly the algorithm. "Deterministic" means different things to a data scientist/programmer, but let's not go into details here.</p>
  
  <p>There is no "freewill" in AI, it's all about mathematics and algorithms. Don't watch too many scientific movies!</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-09-12T07:04:04.180Z
Answers.Text: How are you defining "deterministic" and "freewill" in this answer? As these are difficult concepts, your answer needs some working definitions.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Neil Slater
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-10-03T19:40:54.960Z
Answers.Text: I'm wondering though, if a learning algorithm develops novel goals, does that demonstrate volition/intentionality, analogous to the free will we humans perceive ourselves as having?  *(PS- I'm thinking you meant to say "scientific" movies, in terms of misleading, quasi-science?)*
Answers.UserDisplayName: DukeZhou
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-09-12T03:57:37.733Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2018-09-12T03:57:37.733Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: SmallChess
Answers.Body: <blockquote>
    <p>Although I’m not sure how an act of freewill could even be described (let alone replicated), </p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>Well, one popular definition goes like this:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p><em>[Free will is] the freedom to act according to one's motives without arbitrary hindrance from other individuals or institutions</em></p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Source - Wikipedia entry on Compatibilism</a></p>
  
  <p>Note that this definition is perfectly compatible with determinism (hence the name "Compatibilism"). Actually, proponents usually argue that free will <em>requires</em> determinism, because if your choices were ultimately random, like rolling a dice, how could they be <em>your</em> free choices?</p>
  
  <p>Now, if you assume that an AI can be said to have "motives", then according to this view, it would have free will - if noone hinders it.</p>
  
  <p>The contrary view, Incompatibilism, has been described in another answer by John Doucette. I agree with him that most AI researchers probably don't worry about philosphical questions like that. All the proponents of indeterminism (sometimes called metaphysical free will or libertarianism) I'm aware of assume that there exist "causes" that are neither deterministic / physical, nor purely random. (e.g. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_causation" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Agent causation</a>). Since AIs are more or less by definition based on physical processes, deterministic algorithms and possibly some random number generator, I don't see how they could posess this kind of freedom.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-09-12T21:48:51.007Z
Answers.Text: Thanks. Does this mean, according to Compatibilism, if something should *cause* an AI computer to “decide” to destroy all humans, and nobody pulls the cord, then the AI would be free to carry out this decision- thus having freewill?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Cannabijoy
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-09-13T05:13:09.853Z
Answers.Text: @anonymouswho: Probably yes. If nothing forces you to pull the trigger (e.g. by holding your hand, threatening you etc.), then it's your free decision. Which is pretty close to our everyday intuition.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Niki
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-09-13T12:01:30.850Z
Answers.Text: What would *cause* an AI to decide to destroy humanity? Perhaps a virus? Or maybe it’s battery is low so it malfunctions? Would we say these things *forced* the AI to do something it wasn’t programmed to do?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Cannabijoy
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-10-03T19:43:36.527Z
Answers.Text: Excellent answer.  I want to pose the same question I posed on another answer: *If a learning algorithm develops novel goals, does that demonstrate volition/intentionality, analogous to the free will we humans perceive ourselves as having?*
Answers.UserDisplayName: DukeZhou
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-10-04T05:36:39.233Z
Answers.Text: @DukeZhou: I guess that depends on how you define the terms "goal", "volition" and "intentionality". Otherwise it's just a question about semantics.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Niki
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-09-12T13:04:05.353Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2018-09-12T15:54:28.800Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2018-09-12T15:54:28.800Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Niki
Answers.Body: <p>You guys are missing the point completely.</p>
  
  <p>Everything I read assumes that being is based on science.  You are trying to fit the reality of being into a brain, that is, into a machine. You know that you exist. A billion sensors of every imaginable type cannot equate to reality. Even with a billion more neurons than what's in the brain.</p>
  
  <p>It's like the mathematics you use. You believe you can be accurate when the truth is, you cannot be. The position between 2 numbers can never be accurate, they are infinite. </p>
  
  <p>It's like time. You believe it to be organic when the truth is, there is only the now. </p>
  
  <p>Try as you may, you will never fit being into an algorithm. The real illusion is that you believe you can.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-06-04T16:06:08.963Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-06-04T16:06:08.963Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Pierre Chicoine
Answers.Body: <p><em>I was very bored.</em></p>
  
  <p>The short answer is <strong><em>yes</em></strong> and the long answer is basically <strong><em>yes</em></strong>.</p>
  
  <p>I'm going to gloss over what you could possibly mean by <em>AI</em> and instead focus on what <em>AI programs</em> pretty much are:</p>
  
  <p>A mish-mash of algorithms and methods borrowed from mathematics, perhaps more specifically statistics, inserted into a good old-fashioned program.</p>
  
  <p>Let's start from the very beginning. The <strong>very beginning</strong>.</p>
  
  <p>For the sake of this argument, <strong>everything</strong> is a language and there exists an <strong>omnipotent alphabet</strong> which contains all possible symbols you can come up with to convey a message. Such an alphabet would contain everything you've ever known, all their permutations, and then some. It would contain your clothes as well. Forget countable infinity or all those concepts, those come way later.</p>
  
  <p>It is important to realise that right now I'm communicating with you through <em>not just</em> through the power of a string of characters. You're also experiencing other stimuli that you, or whatever part of "you", is/are capable of <strong>interpreting</strong> into another language. To be crude, everything you decide to classify as a 'standalone thing' is a compiler that runs in perpetual execution, translating all the 'things' it 'receives' into other 'things' it 'spits out' for other 'things' to 'receive'.</p>
  
  <p>Think about a modern day computer. You write a program in your fancy little language. You hit compile. A compiler goes through your code, and spits out more code. Except this time this code is written in another language, sometimes "closer to the metal", sometimes "just about the same abstract level" and sometimes "even more abstract", and this process repeats itself until somewhere along the line that code you started with, has been interpreted to mere electrical signals, which then themselves are being 'compiled' by an entity we will call '<strong>the universe</strong>' and that's up to empirical observation to determine what and what's not going on. (Except "the universe" was always responsible. But we will partition things for the sake of ..partitioning things. You get what I mean, I know you do.)</p>
  
  <p>Now let's jump back to languages. Mathematics is a language in the sense that:</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li>It is built of symbols contained in an alphabet we will call <strong>X</strong></li>
  <li>The several fields specify their own grammatical structure through which we can decide whether or not a statement is <em>well-formed</em>. This encompasses everything from where you can put the <strong>+</strong> operator in high school algebra, to how you can write a <strong>proof</strong> in formal logic. There needs to be no justification for how you build a grammar. You can always just make a new grammar and use it instead. Of course, it might not be capable of forming statements which are compatible with other grammars.</li>
  </ul>
  
  <p>What's interesting about <strong>X</strong> is that its definition is not fixed. Throughout time, we've introduced new symbols into the mathematical alphabet to be able to express more concepts while keeping things separate. (Or rather some people have had the sense to keep it this way.) For example, whenever you see Leibniz's integration symbol, you know you're probably dealing with some kind of integration and not something novel that you've never heard of before.</p>
  
  <p>Now here's where I actually answer your question:</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li>I assume that by "program" you are referring to the mathematical construct as defined in theoretical computer science: A <strong>string</strong> of <strong>characters</strong> from an <strong>alphabet</strong>.</li>
  <li>This <strong>string</strong> is then fed to a <strong>compiler</strong> (lexer|parser|<strong>semantic analyser</strong>) which spits out another <strong>string</strong> (mainly the job of the semantic analyser). This string usually is built from characters of a different alphabet. That is to say, the <strong>compiler is a function which maps a well formed string of language A to a string of language B</strong></li>
  <li>The end goal of compiling a program is to execute it, which basically means a succession of <strong>compilers</strong> will take the output of the previous compiler and spit back yet another string, until the string is essentially <strong>electrons moving about the circuitry of the computer in your bedroom and producing fancy lights on your monitor</strong></li>
  </ul>
  
  <p>So whenever you write an "AI program", you're just writing a "program" that contains some "AI algorithms" which are really just applications of things we've known in mathematics for 100s of years, which again, are really just a string of characters that are about to be translated by a compiler.</p>
  
  <p>In other words, nothing you can ever write is <em>not</em> deterministic, provided you look at the bigger picture.</p>
  
  <p>A common argument I see is that since AI programs usually "adapt" and "self-optimise" when solving the problem, they're not quite deterministic, in the sense that feeding the program the same input twice will (hopefully) yield better results the second time.
  Except what really happened is that you had an input string that you partitioned into inputs A and B, and fed them to the algorithm in succession. Had you fed AB initially, you would've obtained the same results.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-04-07T23:30:53.673Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-04-07T23:30:53.673Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Novicegrammer
Answers.Body: <p>Love question. Firstly, as pointed out in other answers Narrow AI today are mostly algorithms following their procedures given some inputs. No need for philosophy here as they are following reproducible steps.</p>
  
  <p>However, if your referring to general AI or AI a kin to human level intelligence or better then maybe the question holds some weight. But again as pointed out it would come back to whether you believe you or I indeed have free will?</p>
  
  <p>For me I believe free will can be modelled as a sort of entropy. If you look on the macro level things are blurry, agents are making decisions and moving around in a unpredicatable way. On the micro level however, given all the data in one state one could predict the next state shattering the idea of free will. I guess it’s up to you to decide whether this fits with your free wil definition or not.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-10-03T17:10:38.947Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2018-10-03T17:10:38.947Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: benbyford
Answers.Body: <p>&quot;there's no such thing as true random numbers anyway.&quot; that's all you really need to deter any idea of AI on any computer. Any software or set of functions on a computer is pretty much (right now at least) all set code, by humans.</p>
  <p>Also the execution of actions based on variables not listed is not artificial intelligence, it's just simpler code.</p>
  <p>Any REAL Artificial Intelligence will not be made on a board of 1's and 0's, that's defeating the purpose, all of the actions are predetermined (even if they are extended intricately to cover many possibilities) so they have no chance to create something non-deterministic.
  Real independent intellect is most likely (in my eyes) found, not made.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-04-07T17:03:04.133Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2024-05-18T14:08:19.493Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2024-05-18T14:08:19.493Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: JJDrip Beats
Answers.Body: <p>The free will in the spiritual world would be for you to have the right to follow or not the main path (God's way). Taking into consideration that whatever path you follow, you will have its consquences (good or bad).</p>
  
  <p>However, an artificial intelligence created to solve problems does not need these distractions. Determinism considers the feeling of freedom a subjective illusion. Trying to apply free will to an AI is to create an inner inner space within the "mind" .. but creating that is already impossible because we can not understand exactly what is going on in our minds. The big question is, how to program something that we can not explain accurately? How to induce an AI to learn something that does not make sense?</p>
  
  <p>I believe that it is not just code and database that will lead the AI ​​to have faith in its existence or to believe in free will. But to construct an AI that reads and understands every human mind, every thought, house illusion, every paranoia, every confusion, every sadness, every lie ... may be a good source of studies, but whoever qualifies for this kind of experiment? What would be the conclusion of an AI by understanding the whole confused and troubled human mind?</p>
  
  <p>It's a very complex question ... let's continue studying and raising this kind of subject. I spent my last years trying to recreate human thoughts and actions in an AI .. it's a study for a lifetime .. my fear is the disappointment at the end of everything :(</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-09-13T20:44:08.857Z
Answers.Text: You bring up some interesting questions. If an AI is programmed to fear, and it acquires a fear of *death*- or being shut off- how would it react? I don’t think AI can have human thoughts unless it’s lived a human life. I don’t remember being potty-trained, but it’s something that drastically changed my life. And even after the fact that billions of people have come and gone, the outcomes are still endless.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Cannabijoy
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-04-07T23:34:36.000Z
Answers.Text: @Cannabijoy it would react in the way it was told to, or told to learn to, nothing more, nothing else.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Novicegrammer
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-09-12T14:55:12.860Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2018-09-12T14:55:12.860Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: GIA
Answers.Body: <p>No, because there is no utility in building a "libertarian free AI" as far as I know of.</p>
  
  <p>AI is another tool. What is the purpose in building an AI with such a distinction? </p>
  
  <p>The reason for that question is this. Let's say you want an AI to accomplish some kind of task you want machine assistance in. That's what tools do- assisting with tasks. <em>What exactly would this task be that a "non-libertarian free AI" couldn't achieve but a "libertarian free AI" could?</em></p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-03-11T08:27:55.390Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-03-11T08:27:55.390Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: pixie
Answers.Body: <p>AI is algorithmic not free willed in a sense that humans have free will.  So in that sense it is deterministic.  Give it the same data each time you would expect the same result.  Change something (ie feed it new data to learn from) and then it will give a different result.  Hence the determinism.</p>
  
  <p>EDIT: Some algorithms do use some randomising - ie some versions of hill climbing - but if we want to get technical there's no such thing as true random numbers anyway.  (Unless you're using one of those supercomputers that use the radiation from the sun as a seeding factor)</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-04-08T08:42:43.763Z
Answers.Text: @solarflare As a side note, true random numbers are not hard to generate, e.g. using single photon sources. You don't need anything fancy for this, just basic quantum mechanics.
Answers.UserDisplayName: user1587520
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-09-12T07:01:45.183Z
Answers.Text: In what sense do humans have "free will" as you use it in this answer? For instance, are you referring to [Cartesian Dualism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_dualism)? You appear to be equating free will with "true random numbers" - could you explain why? Your assertion about using radiation from the sun is odd - what makes that "true random" and, say quantum noise as used in commercial TRNG chips not "true random".
Answers.UserDisplayName: Neil Slater
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-09-12T22:12:43.697Z
Answers.Text: I agree with Neil. This answers just asserts that we have freewill, but doesn’t explain how. If a human thinks berries are food (initial data), and is about to eat a poisonous berry, but another human tells them it’s poisonous (introducing new data) so that they do not eat, how does that equate to freewill?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Cannabijoy
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-09-12T22:53:01.513Z
Answers.Text: Free will as a philosophical debate has been ongoing for centuries, probably beyond the scope of the comments. Think of it from a simplistic view, I could have chosen to respond to these comments or I could have ignored them. My free will. Based on random factors (how tired I am right now, how busy I am, wether I'm in the mood to respond nicely or not -which itself can rely on thousands of factors including the weather- etc) I exercised a certain degree of free will.  You can't replicate that to the same extent.
Answers.UserDisplayName: solarflare
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-09-12T22:54:51.123Z
Answers.Text: As for random numbers have a look at random.org which uses radiation from the sun and atmospheric noise to seed true (to an extent) random numbers.  otherwise a computer can not create true random numbers due to hardware and mathematical limitations.
Answers.UserDisplayName: solarflare
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-09-13T12:06:07.607Z
Answers.Text: I think what Neil means about *randomness* is that committing a random act does not equate to a “free will”. If a robot starts to randomly wave it’s arm in the air, and cannot provide a reason for this bizarre behavior, then we couldn’t really say it *freely wanted* to wave its arms. *Why* did you choose to respond to these comments? Did you have any *reason* to? Did you have a *reason* not to?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Cannabijoy
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-09-14T00:01:26.677Z
Answers.Text: Of course I had a reason. My thoughts flowed in a way to convict me that I was right and what I was presented with as an alternative fact was wrong. As having my brain wired (or my neurons trained) in a stubborn manner I automatically responded.  So this would be an argument against free will. This behavior can be replicated in a machine. With this world view there is no such thing as love, fear, nostalgia etc.  It is I guess very nihilistic.
Answers.UserDisplayName: solarflare
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-09-14T01:34:57.060Z
Answers.Text: It doesn’t have to nihilistic, and I don’t really see how having a free will gives life any more meaning. If we have a *purpose* to live, love, etc., then there was a *reason*- and our life and love will create their own causes and effects that will permeate the world. En archē ēn ho logos...
Answers.UserDisplayName: Cannabijoy
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-09-14T01:38:02.643Z
Answers.Text: Or we could easily say life is a pursuit to feed dopamine, seratonin and endorphines to a 2 pound chunk of meat inside our skulls. En arche en ho science.
Answers.UserDisplayName: solarflare
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-10-03T19:37:56.937Z
Answers.Text: @solarflare I tend to couch it as "we (humans) appear to have free will."  *(imo, I'm not sure how the appearance of and actuality are materially different in that validating or disproving free will wouldn't seem to change anything;)*
Answers.UserDisplayName: DukeZhou
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-10-03T22:49:00.673Z
Answers.Text: @DukeZhou I agree. From our perspective we have free will.  Wether we actually have it or not are somewhat irrelevant to the actual experience.
Answers.UserDisplayName: solarflare
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-09-12T03:48:08.733Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2018-09-12T03:53:36.930Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2018-09-12T03:53:36.930Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: solarflare
Answers.Body: <p>I'm going to assume that by free will, you mean something like the philosophical concept of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_(metaphysics)" rel="noreferrer">libertarian free will</a>, which is defended by philosophers like <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kane_(philosopher)" rel="noreferrer">Robert Kane</a>. In Libertarian Free Will, individuals have some capability to make choices about their actions. The classic way to argue this is by assuming some kind of spirit-stuff (e.g. a soul) that exists outside the material world, and that this spirit-stuff constitutes the consciousness of a person. Kane tries some mental gymnastics to avoid this, but then concedes something like it in a footnote. I'm not aware of any serious work that doesn't make some kind of non-physical assumption to justify this view. If someone can point at one, I'll update the answer.</p>
  
  <p>By determinism, I'm going to assume you mean the usual notion of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism" rel="noreferrer">philosophical determinism</a>: since people's decisions depend on what happened in the past, and where they are in the present, they don't really have a choice in any meaningful sense. Philosopher's like Dennett adopt a slightly softer view (<em>compatibilism</em>, essentially: you don't get to make big choices, but you do get to make small ones). Appeals to Quantum Mechanics are common to justify that view. In this context, free action means something more like "did something we couldn't predict exactly". An example might be: you are pre-destined to put a can of campbell's brand tomato soup in your shopping cart, but "make a choice" about exactly which of the dozens of cans you will put in. Since small choices can have large impacts (maybe that can will give you food poisoning, and the others wouldn't), this can make all sorts of things impossible to predict exactly. </p>
  
  <p>I think most AI researchers don't worry too much about these issues, but Turing actually addresses them in his paper right at the start of the field, <a href="https://www.csee.umbc.edu/courses/471/papers/turing.pdf" rel="noreferrer">Computing Machinary and Intelligence</a>. The deterministic/compatibilist view point is introduced as Lady Lovelace's objection: Computers only know how to do what we tell them to, so they can't be called intelligence.</p>
  
  <p>Turing's counterargument uses two prongs. First, Turing notes that computers can probably be made to learn (he was right!). If they can learn, they can do things that we don't expect, just like children do. Second, Turing notes that computers already do all sorts of things we don't expect: they have bugs. Anytime a computer exhibits a bug, it did something that was unexpected. Since we cannot generally rule out bugs in programs, computers will always do surprising things. Therefore, computers satisfy the deterministic notion of free will.</p>
  
  <p>Turing also addresses the libertarian notion of free will, which is part of what he calls the "Theological Objection". The objection is that intelligence requires some kind of divine spark (like free will). Turing argues that we can't detect sparks like this right now (he actually thought we would be able to one day, and spent a lot of time looking at supernatural phenomena too). However, there's no reason to suppose that computers with the right programs won't be endowed with them. A divine creator <em>could</em> decide that anytime you build something brain-like, it gets a spark. If we build a program that's brain-like, maybe it gets a spark too. In the absence of some way to detect souls, it seems like we ought to just agree to treat things that <em>seem</em> intelligent as though they had these souls, since otherwise we don't have a really clear way to decide who is and isn't intelligent. The only remaining way is to say "only things made of human meat have souls and are intelligent". While a lot of people do actually say things like this (e.g. animals have no souls), this is a pretty arbitrary view, and I think there's no hope arguing against it. Turing suggests the "Anthropic Principal": we shouldn't assume that we're special, because the earth isn't in a special place in the galaxy, or in the universe, and we have pretty compelling evidence that we're an evolved version of other animals around us, but some groups (e.g. biblical literalists) find this unconvincing. </p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-04-08T00:54:46.840Z
Answers.Text: Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been [moved to chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/106453/discussion-on-answer-by-john-doucette-does-ai-rely-on-determinism).
Answers.UserDisplayName: nbro
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-09-12T12:22:20.283Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2018-09-12T19:18:02.030Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2018-09-12T19:18:02.030Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: John Doucette
Body: <p>I don’t believe in free will, but most people do. Although I’m not sure how an act of free will could even be described (let alone replicated), is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_(metaphysics)" rel="nofollow noreferrer">libertarian freewill</a> something that is considered for AI? Or is AI understood to be deterministic?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-09-12T12:56:49.683Z
Comments.Text: It looks like the definition you have used requires that "free will is logically incompatible with a deterministic universe" - if we accept that definition, and also accept that free will exists, then probably it does not prevent the creation of non-deterministic machines which can have that form of free will. But either way, it allows a discussion to go forward.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Neil Slater
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-03-11T21:12:33.970Z
Comments.Text: See the [Strong Free Will Theorem](https://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200226p.pdf).  I feel like I'm starting to get a handle on this (although that feeling may be illusory;) but the bits about locality are interesting. 
  
  I've been studying games formally for a little while and it seems that Indeterminacy only arises from inaccessible information, including intractability and random number generation.  Sans indeterminacy, the concept free will seems meaningless, but that even deterministic models (such as non-chance, perfect information games) can produce indeterminacy.
Comments.UserDisplayName: DukeZhou
Tags: <philosophy><human-like><artificial-consciousness>
Title: Does AI rely on determinism?
UserDisplayName: Cannabijoy
ThreadText: # Does AI rely on determinism?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2018-09-11)
  
  I don’t believe in free will, but most people do. Although I’m not sure how an act of free will could even be described (let alone replicated), is [libertarian freewill](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_(metaphysics)) something that is considered for AI? Or is AI understood to be deterministic?
  
  **Tags:** philosophy, human-like, artificial-consciousness
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: It looks like the definition you have used requires that "free will is logically incompatible with a deterministic universe" - if we accept that definition, and also accept that free will exists, then probably it does not prevent the creation of non-deterministic machines which can have that form of free will. But either way, it allows a discussion to go forward.  
  > **username_2**: See the [Strong Free Will Theorem](https://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200226p.pdf).  I feel like I'm starting to get a handle on this (although that feeling may be illusory;) but the bits about locality are interesting.   I've been studying games formally for a little while and it seems that Indeterminacy only arises from inaccessible information, including intractability and random number generation.  Sans indeterminacy, the concept free will seems meaningless, but that even deterministic models (such as non-chance, perfect information games) can produce indeterminacy.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 10 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_13 on 2018-09-12. Score: 15 | Accepted answer
  
  I'm going to assume that by free will, you mean something like the philosophical concept of [libertarian free will](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_(metaphysics)), which is defended by philosophers like [Robert Kane](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kane_(philosopher)). In Libertarian Free Will, individuals have some capability to make choices about their actions. The classic way to argue this is by assuming some kind of spirit-stuff (e.g. a soul) that exists outside the material world, and that this spirit-stuff constitutes the consciousness of a person. Kane tries some mental gymnastics to avoid this, but then concedes something like it in a footnote. I'm not aware of any serious work that doesn't make some kind of non-physical assumption to justify this view. If someone can point at one, I'll update the answer.
  
  By determinism, I'm going to assume you mean the usual notion of [philosophical determinism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism): since people's decisions depend on what happened in the past, and where they are in the present, they don't really have a choice in any meaningful sense. Philosopher's like Dennett adopt a slightly softer view (*compatibilism*, essentially: you don't get to make big choices, but you do get to make small ones). Appeals to Quantum Mechanics are common to justify that view. In this context, free action means something more like "did something we couldn't predict exactly". An example might be: you are pre-destined to put a can of campbell's brand tomato soup in your shopping cart, but "make a choice" about exactly which of the dozens of cans you will put in. Since small choices can have large impacts (maybe that can will give you food poisoning, and the others wouldn't), this can make all sorts of things impossible to predict exactly.
  
  I think most AI researchers don't worry too much about these issues, but Turing actually addresses them in his paper right at the start of the field, [Computing Machinary and Intelligence](https://www.csee.umbc.edu/courses/471/papers/turing.pdf). The deterministic/compatibilist view point is introduced as Lady Lovelace's objection: Computers only know how to do what we tell them to, so they can't be called intelligence.
  
  Turing's counterargument uses two prongs. First, Turing notes that computers can probably be made to learn (he was right!). If they can learn, they can do things that we don't expect, just like children do. Second, Turing notes that computers already do all sorts of things we don't expect: they have bugs. Anytime a computer exhibits a bug, it did something that was unexpected. Since we cannot generally rule out bugs in programs, computers will always do surprising things. Therefore, computers satisfy the deterministic notion of free will.
  
  Turing also addresses the libertarian notion of free will, which is part of what he calls the "Theological Objection". The objection is that intelligence requires some kind of divine spark (like free will). Turing argues that we can't detect sparks like this right now (he actually thought we would be able to one day, and spent a lot of time looking at supernatural phenomena too). However, there's no reason to suppose that computers with the right programs won't be endowed with them. A divine creator *could* decide that anytime you build something brain-like, it gets a spark. If we build a program that's brain-like, maybe it gets a spark too. In the absence of some way to detect souls, it seems like we ought to just agree to treat things that *seem* intelligent as though they had these souls, since otherwise we don't have a really clear way to decide who is and isn't intelligent. The only remaining way is to say "only things made of human meat have souls and are intelligent". While a lot of people do actually say things like this (e.g. animals have no souls), this is a pretty arbitrary view, and I think there's no hope arguing against it. Turing suggests the "Anthropic Principal": we shouldn't assume that we're special, because the earth isn't in a special place in the galaxy, or in the universe, and we have pretty compelling evidence that we're an evolved version of other animals around us, but some groups (e.g. biblical literalists) find this unconvincing.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_14**: Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been [moved to chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/106453/discussion-on-answer-by-username_13-username_13-does-ai-rely-on-determinism).  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2018-09-12. Score: 4
  
  AI is "deterministic" in the sense that it follows exactly the algorithm. "Deterministic" means different things to a data scientist/programmer, but let's not go into details here.
  
  There is no "freewill" in AI, it's all about mathematics and algorithms. Don't watch too many scientific movies!
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: How are you defining "deterministic" and "freewill" in this answer? As these are difficult concepts, your answer needs some working definitions.  
  > **username_2**: I'm wondering though, if a learning algorithm develops novel goals, does that demonstrate volition/intentionality, analogous to the free will we humans perceive ourselves as having?  *(PS- I'm thinking you meant to say "scientific" movies, in terms of misleading, quasi-science?)*  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2018-09-12. Score: 3
  
  > Although I’m not sure how an act of freewill could even be described (let alone replicated),
  
  Well, one popular definition goes like this:
  
  > *[Free will is] the freedom to act according to one's motives without arbitrary hindrance from other individuals or institutions*
  
  [Source - Wikipedia entry on Compatibilism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism)
  
  Note that this definition is perfectly compatible with determinism (hence the name "Compatibilism"). Actually, proponents usually argue that free will *requires* determinism, because if your choices were ultimately random, like rolling a dice, how could they be *your* free choices?
  
  Now, if you assume that an AI can be said to have "motives", then according to this view, it would have free will - if noone hinders it.
  
  The contrary view, Incompatibilism, has been described in another answer by username_13 username_13. I agree with him that most AI researchers probably don't worry about philosphical questions like that. All the proponents of indeterminism (sometimes called metaphysical free will or libertarianism) I'm aware of assume that there exist "causes" that are neither deterministic / physical, nor purely random. (e.g. [Agent causation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_causation)). Since AIs are more or less by definition based on physical processes, deterministic algorithms and possibly some random number generator, I don't see how they could posess this kind of freedom.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Thanks. Does this mean, according to Compatibilism, if something should *cause* an AI computer to “decide” to destroy all humans, and nobody pulls the cord, then the AI would be free to carry out this decision- thus having freewill?  
  > **username_4**: @anonymouswho: Probably yes. If nothing forces you to pull the trigger (e.g. by holding your hand, threatening you etc.), then it's your free decision. Which is pretty close to our everyday intuition.  
  > **username_0**: What would *cause* an AI to decide to destroy humanity? Perhaps a virus? Or maybe it’s battery is low so it malfunctions? Would we say these things *forced* the AI to do something it wasn’t programmed to do?  
  > **username_2**: Excellent answer.  I want to pose the same question I posed on another answer: *If a learning algorithm develops novel goals, does that demonstrate volition/intentionality, analogous to the free will we humans perceive ourselves as having?*  
  > **username_4**: @username_2: I guess that depends on how you define the terms "goal", "volition" and "intentionality". Otherwise it's just a question about semantics.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_5 on 2020-06-04. Score: 0
  
  You guys are missing the point completely.
  
  Everything I read assumes that being is based on science. You are trying to fit the reality of being into a brain, that is, into a machine. You know that you exist. A billion sensors of every imaginable type cannot equate to reality. Even with a billion more neurons than what's in the brain.
  
  It's like the mathematics you use. You believe you can be accurate when the truth is, you cannot be. The position between 2 numbers can never be accurate, they are infinite.
  
  It's like time. You believe it to be organic when the truth is, there is only the now.
  
  Try as you may, you will never fit being into an algorithm. The real illusion is that you believe you can.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_6 on 2020-04-07. Score: 0
  
  *I was very bored.*
  
  The short answer is ***yes*** and the long answer is basically ***yes***.
  
  I'm going to gloss over what you could possibly mean by *AI* and instead focus on what *AI programs* pretty much are:
  
  A mish-mash of algorithms and methods borrowed from mathematics, perhaps more specifically statistics, inserted into a good old-fashioned program.
  
  Let's start from the very beginning. The **very beginning**.
  
  For the sake of this argument, **everything** is a language and there exists an **omnipotent alphabet** which contains all possible symbols you can come up with to convey a message. Such an alphabet would contain everything you've ever known, all their permutations, and then some. It would contain your clothes as well. Forget countable infinity or all those concepts, those come way later.
  
  It is important to realise that right now I'm communicating with you through *not just* through the power of a string of characters. You're also experiencing other stimuli that you, or whatever part of "you", is/are capable of **interpreting** into another language. To be crude, everything you decide to classify as a 'standalone thing' is a compiler that runs in perpetual execution, translating all the 'things' it 'receives' into other 'things' it 'spits out' for other 'things' to 'receive'.
  
  Think about a modern day computer. You write a program in your fancy little language. You hit compile. A compiler goes through your code, and spits out more code. Except this time this code is written in another language, sometimes "closer to the metal", sometimes "just about the same abstract level" and sometimes "even more abstract", and this process repeats itself until somewhere along the line that code you started with, has been interpreted to mere electrical signals, which then themselves are being 'compiled' by an entity we will call '**the universe**' and that's up to empirical observation to determine what and what's not going on. (Except "the universe" was always responsible. But we will partition things for the sake of ..partitioning things. You get what I mean, I know you do.)
  
  Now let's jump back to languages. Mathematics is a language in the sense that:
  
  * It is built of symbols contained in an alphabet we will call **X**
  * The several fields specify their own grammatical structure through which we can decide whether or not a statement is *well-formed*. This encompasses everything from where you can put the **+** operator in high school algebra, to how you can write a **proof** in formal logic. There needs to be no justification for how you build a grammar. You can always just make a new grammar and use it instead. Of course, it might not be capable of forming statements which are compatible with other grammars.
  
  What's interesting about **X** is that its definition is not fixed. Throughout time, we've introduced new symbols into the mathematical alphabet to be able to express more concepts while keeping things separate. (Or rather some people have had the sense to keep it this way.) For example, whenever you see Leibniz's integration symbol, you know you're probably dealing with some kind of integration and not something novel that you've never heard of before.
  
  Now here's where I actually answer your question:
  
  * I assume that by "program" you are referring to the mathematical construct as defined in theoretical computer science: A **string** of **characters** from an **alphabet**.
  * This **string** is then fed to a **compiler** (lexer|parser|**semantic analyser**) which spits out another **string** (mainly the job of the semantic analyser). This string usually is built from characters of a different alphabet. That is to say, the **compiler is a function which maps a well formed string of language A to a string of language B**
  * The end goal of compiling a program is to execute it, which basically means a succession of **compilers** will take the output of the previous compiler and spit back yet another string, until the string is essentially **electrons moving about the circuitry of the computer in your bedroom and producing fancy lights on your monitor**
  
  So whenever you write an "AI program", you're just writing a "program" that contains some "AI algorithms" which are really just applications of things we've known in mathematics for 100s of years, which again, are really just a string of characters that are about to be translated by a compiler.
  
  In other words, nothing you can ever write is *not* deterministic, provided you look at the bigger picture.
  
  A common argument I see is that since AI programs usually "adapt" and "self-optimise" when solving the problem, they're not quite deterministic, in the sense that feeding the program the same input twice will (hopefully) yield better results the second time.
  Except what really happened is that you had an input string that you partitioned into inputs A and B, and fed them to the algorithm in succession. Had you fed AB initially, you would've obtained the same results.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_7 on 2018-10-03. Score: 0
  
  Love question. Firstly, as pointed out in other answers Narrow AI today are mostly algorithms following their procedures given some inputs. No need for philosophy here as they are following reproducible steps.
  
  However, if your referring to general AI or AI a kin to human level intelligence or better then maybe the question holds some weight. But again as pointed out it would come back to whether you believe you or I indeed have free will?
  
  For me I believe free will can be modelled as a sort of entropy. If you look on the macro level things are blurry, agents are making decisions and moving around in a unpredicatable way. On the micro level however, given all the data in one state one could predict the next state shattering the idea of free will. I guess it’s up to you to decide whether this fits with your free wil definition or not.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_8 on 2019-04-07. Score: 0
  
  "there's no such thing as true random numbers anyway." that's all you really need to deter any idea of AI on any computer. Any software or set of functions on a computer is pretty much (right now at least) all set code, by humans.
  
  Also the execution of actions based on variables not listed is not artificial intelligence, it's just simpler code.
  
  Any REAL Artificial Intelligence will not be made on a board of 1's and 0's, that's defeating the purpose, all of the actions are predetermined (even if they are extended intricately to cover many possibilities) so they have no chance to create something non-deterministic.
  Real independent intellect is most likely (in my eyes) found, not made.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_9 on 2018-09-12. Score: 0
  
  The free will in the spiritual world would be for you to have the right to follow or not the main path (God's way). Taking into consideration that whatever path you follow, you will have its consquences (good or bad).
  
  However, an artificial intelligence created to solve problems does not need these distractions. Determinism considers the feeling of freedom a subjective illusion. Trying to apply free will to an AI is to create an inner inner space within the "mind" .. but creating that is already impossible because we can not understand exactly what is going on in our minds. The big question is, how to program something that we can not explain accurately? How to induce an AI to learn something that does not make sense?
  
  I believe that it is not just code and database that will lead the AI ​​to have faith in its existence or to believe in free will. But to construct an AI that reads and understands every human mind, every thought, house illusion, every paranoia, every confusion, every sadness, every lie ... may be a good source of studies, but whoever qualifies for this kind of experiment? What would be the conclusion of an AI by understanding the whole confused and troubled human mind?
  
  It's a very complex question ... let's continue studying and raising this kind of subject. I spent my last years trying to recreate human thoughts and actions in an AI .. it's a study for a lifetime .. my fear is the disappointment at the end of everything :(
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: You bring up some interesting questions. If an AI is programmed to fear, and it acquires a fear of *death*- or being shut off- how would it react? I don’t think AI can have human thoughts unless it’s lived a human life. I don’t remember being potty-trained, but it’s something that drastically changed my life. And even after the fact that billions of people have come and gone, the outcomes are still endless.  
  > **username_6**: @username_0 it would react in the way it was told to, or told to learn to, nothing more, nothing else.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_10 on 2019-03-11. Score: 0
  
  No, because there is no utility in building a "libertarian free AI" as far as I know of.
  
  AI is another tool. What is the purpose in building an AI with such a distinction?
  
  The reason for that question is this. Let's say you want an AI to accomplish some kind of task you want machine assistance in. That's what tools do- assisting with tasks. *What exactly would this task be that a "non-libertarian free AI" couldn't achieve but a "libertarian free AI" could?*
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_11 on 2018-09-12. Score: 0
  
  AI is algorithmic not free willed in a sense that humans have free will. So in that sense it is deterministic. Give it the same data each time you would expect the same result. Change something (ie feed it new data to learn from) and then it will give a different result. Hence the determinism.
  
  EDIT: Some algorithms do use some randomising - ie some versions of hill climbing - but if we want to get technical there's no such thing as true random numbers anyway. (Unless you're using one of those supercomputers that use the radiation from the sun as a seeding factor)
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: In what sense do humans have "free will" as you use it in this answer? For instance, are you referring to [Cartesian Dualism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_dualism)? You appear to be equating free will with "true random numbers" - could you explain why? Your assertion about using radiation from the sun is odd - what makes that "true random" and, say quantum noise as used in commercial TRNG chips not "true random".  
  > **username_0**: I agree with username_1. This answers just asserts that we have freewill, but doesn’t explain how. If a human thinks berries are food (initial data), and is about to eat a poisonous berry, but another human tells them it’s poisonous (introducing new data) so that they do not eat, how does that equate to freewill?  
  > **username_11**: Free will as a philosophical debate has been ongoing for centuries, probably beyond the scope of the comments. Think of it from a simplistic view, I could have chosen to respond to these comments or I could have ignored them. My free will. Based on random factors (how tired I am right now, how busy I am, wether I'm in the mood to respond nicely or not -which itself can rely on thousands of factors including the weather- etc) I exercised a certain degree of free will.  You can't replicate that to the same extent.  
  > **username_11**: As for random numbers have a look at random.org which uses radiation from the sun and atmospheric noise to seed true (to an extent) random numbers.  otherwise a computer can not create true random numbers due to hardware and mathematical limitations.  
  > **username_0**: I think what username_1 means about *randomness* is that committing a random act does not equate to a “free will”. If a robot starts to randomly wave it’s arm in the air, and cannot provide a reason for this bizarre behavior, then we couldn’t really say it *freely wanted* to wave its arms. *Why* did you choose to respond to these comments? Did you have any *reason* to? Did you have a *reason* not to?  
  > **username_11**: Of course I had a reason. My thoughts flowed in a way to convict me that I was right and what I was presented with as an alternative fact was wrong. As having my brain wired (or my neurons trained) in a stubborn manner I automatically responded.  So this would be an argument against free will. This behavior can be replicated in a machine. With this world view there is no such thing as love, fear, nostalgia etc.  It is I guess very nihilistic.  
  > **username_0**: It doesn’t have to nihilistic, and I don’t really see how having a free will gives life any more meaning. If we have a *purpose* to live, love, etc., then there was a *reason*- and our life and love will create their own causes and effects that will permeate the world. En archē ēn ho logos...  
  > **username_11**: Or we could easily say life is a pursuit to feed dopamine, seratonin and endorphines to a 2 pound chunk of meat inside our skulls. En arche en ho science.  
  > **username_2**: @username_11 I tend to couch it as "we (humans) appear to have free will."  *(imo, I'm not sure how the appearance of and actuality are materially different in that validating or disproving free will wouldn't seem to change anything;)*  
  > **username_11**: @username_2 I agree. From our perspective we have free will.  Wether we actually have it or not are somewhat irrelevant to the actual experience.  
  > **username_12**: @username_11 As a side note, true random numbers are not hard to generate, e.g. using single photon sources. You don't need anything fancy for this, just basic quantum mechanics.  
  
  ---
  
  