"We presented a similar argument in two publications (Haladjian and Montemayor, 2016; Montemayor, Halpern, and Fairweather, 2022), in which we argued that some kinds of intelligence can be mechanized through AI, but not emotional intelligence, partly because of the biological roots of emotions and partly because the simulation of emotions is strategic and unreasonable. So we agree with Thagard, but we think that, besides being critical of empathic AI proposals, we must further clarify why the issue is not merely the biochemical substrate of emotions."
"In several interviews (like this one with Anderson Cooper), Geoffrey Hinton has defended the view that we must give maternal feelings to artificial intelligence (AI), to keep it safe. Can we really develop a maternal AI? In a recent post, Paul Thagard has pointed out that this proposal is implausible because AI lacks the biochemistry underlying the emotions that are necessary for maternal care."
An attentive artificial intelligence is easier to conceive than a maternal one. Emotional intelligence depends on biological roots and felt reciprocity between emotional beings, making genuine maternal care unlikely to be mechanized. Simulated emotions are often strategic and lack the categorical, nonstrategic care characteristic of maternal bonds. Arguments for empathic AI must account for biochemistry and the necessity of genuine social interaction and empathic symmetry. Debates about consciousness and AI should integrate psychological findings, clarify different notions of consciousness, and recognize the key contributions of attention. A clearer understanding of emotions' role in moral intelligence is necessary to assess AI limits regarding conscious awareness.
Read at Psychology Today
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]