Is the Fear that Machines Might Become our Masters Philosophically Well Grounded?
Authors
PDF (Español (España))
FLIP
The Revista Guillermo de Ockham provides an immediate and open access to its content, based on the principle of offering the public a free access to investigations to provide a global interchange of knowledge.
Unless otherwise established, the contents of this journal has a license with Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
- Attribution: You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- NonCommercial: You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
- NoDerivatives: If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material.
- No additional restrictions: You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Abstract
In this work, we critically analyze some fictional scenarios that support the thesis that, eventually, machines will reach the total domain of the world, including human beings, besides developing the arguments that reject such a thesis. To that end, we divide this paper into four parts. In the first one, we undergo an exercise of conceptual clarification of the essential terms for this discussion, among them “empirical possibility,” “logical possibility,” “machine,” and “dominance.” In the second part, we discuss the most popular plots in fictional film and literature, in particular, the argument of the overwhelming evidence, which supposedly shows that machines already dominate us. In the third part, as a reply to those arguments, we give a synthesis of some of the reasons which support the thesis of the empirical impossibility that machines might become our masters. Finally, we formulate the argument of the logical inconsistency and the epistemic inconsistency or the scenario of the machine’s government on the planet Kepler 452b, and we show that the fear that machines become the masters of the world is not philosophically well grounded.
Keywords:
References
Boden, M. (2016). AI: Its nature and future. Oxford University Press.
Bostrom, N. (2014). Superintelligence: Paths, dangers, strategies. Oxford University Press.
Cameron, J. (Dir.). (1991). Terminator 2 [Película]. Carolco Pictures; Pacific Western Productions; Lightstorm Entertainment; StudioCanal.
Cassini, A. (1997). Equivalencia empírica y subdeterminación en las teorías físicas. Crítica, Revista Hispanoamericana de Filosofía, 24(86), 3-51. https://doi.org/10.22201/iifs.18704905e.1997.1062
Chalmers, D. (2002). Does conceivability entail possibility? En T. S. Gendler y J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Conceivability and possibility (pp. 145-300). Oxford University Press.
Descartes, R. (2009). Meditaciones metafísicas (P. Pavesi, ed.). Prometeo.
Diéguez, A. (2017). Transhumanismo: la búsqueda tecnológica del mejoramiento humano. Herder.
Falzon, C. (2015). Philosophy goes to the movies: An introduction to philosophy. Routledge.
Fernández Cuesta, J. A. (2023). ¿Existen las máquinas aceleradas de Turing? Paradojas y posibilidades lógicas. Techno Review: International Technology Science and Society Review, 13(1), 49-74.
Freeland, C., y Wartenberg, T. (1995). Philosophy and film. Routledge.
Galileo. (2004). Diálogos acerca de dos nuevas ciencias. Losada.
García Duque, C. E. (2007). Casos Gettier y razonadores normales. Ideas y Valores, 56(135), 77-88. https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/idval/article/view/1140
Gendler, T. S., y Hawthorne, J. (2002). Introduction: Conceivability and possibility. En T. S. Gendler y J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Conceivability and possibility (pp. 1-10). Oxford University Press.
Gettier, E. (1963). Is justified true belief knowledge? Analysis, 23(6), 121-123. https://doi.org/10.2307/3326922
Irwin, W. (Ed). (2002). The Matrix and philosophy: Welcome to the dessert of the real. Open Court.
Kirk, R. (2023). Zombies. En E. N. Zalta y U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zombies/
Kurzweil, R. (2005). The singularity is near: When humans transcend biology. Penguin.
Larson, E. J. (2022). The myth of artificial intelligence: Why computers can’t think the way we do. Belnak Press of Harvard University Press.
Latorre, J. I. (2019). Ética para máquinas. Ariel.
Nakano, A. L. (2018). Máquinas de Zenão e a distinção entre cálculo e experimento. En Filosofía e historia de la ciencia en el Cono Sur (pp. 178-186). AFHIC.
Neri, H., y Pessoa Jr., O. (2018). Science without consciousness. En Filosofía e historia de la ciencia en el Cono Sur (pp. 149-155). AFHIC.
Ortega y Gasset, J. (1947). Meditación de la técnica. En Obras completas (pp. 317-275). Revista de Occidente.
Oyarzún, P. (1999). Epicuro: carta a Meneceo. Onomázein, 4, 403-425. https://doi.org/10.7764/onomazein.4.22
Quintanilla, M. Á. (2017). Tecnología: un enfoque filosófico y otros ensayos de filosofía de la tecnología. FCE.
Reuleaux, F. (1875). Theoretische Kinematik. Grundzüge einer Theorie des Maschinenwesens. Friedrich Vieweg und Sohn.
Turing, A. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 59, 433-460. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/LIX.236.433
Wachowski, L., y Wachowski, L. (Dirs.). (1999). Matrix [Película]. Village Roadshow Pictures; Silver Pictures.
Yeffeth, G. (Ed.). (2003). Taking the red pill: Science, philosophy and the religion in the Matrix. Benbella Books.
Zamora Bonilla, J. (2021). Contra apocalípticos: ecologismo, animalismo, posthumanismo. Schackleton Books.
Downloads
Cited by
