Artificial Intelligence | 创造意义的是人类，不是机器

创造意义的是人类，不是机器

Humans, not machines, create meaning

*本文选自教科文《信使》杂志2018年第3期

在“人工智能”这个词中，“智能”只是一个隐喻。虽然人工智能在计算能力方面可能会超越人类，但它无法赋予这些计算任何意义。对于阿根廷哲学家兼精神分析学家米高·本尼赛戈（Miguel Benasayag）来说，将人类错综复杂的思维简单粗暴地化约为计算机代码是一个错误，而认为机器可以替代人类的想法同样荒谬。

问：人工智能与人类智能有何区别？

答：人类智能不是一台计算机，而是一个有情感、有实体、会犯错的过程。就人类而言，智能以欲望的存在和对自身久远历史的认知为前提条件。脱离了任何大脑和肢体活动，人类智能根本无法想象。

人类和动物在大脑的帮助下进行思考，作为身体的一部分，大脑本身在环境中是真实存在的。而机器则不然，它们在进行计算和预测时，无法赋予这些行为任何意义。机器能否替代人类这个问题实际上十分荒谬。创造意义的是人类，而不是计算。许多人工智能研究人员坚信，人类智能与人工智能只存在量的差异，但事实上两者之间存在质的差异。

在谷歌大脑计划中，两台电脑可以用自创的“语言”进行交流，而且人类根本无法破解这种“语言”。您对此怎么看？

这根本毫无道理可言。实际上，每次这两台机器启动时，就会系统地重复相同的信息交换序列。这不是一种语言，它不能交流信息。因此，这是一个很不恰当的比喻，就像说锁能“识别”钥匙一样，跟有些人自称机器人的“朋友”没什么分别。

现在，有一些智能手机应用程序可以与人“聊天”。在斯派克·琼斯（Spike Jonze）的电影《她》（Her，2013年）中，一位男士回答了一连串问题之后，他的脑电波图就被绘制出来。接着，一台机器合成了一个声音，“名花解语”般回应他，让他如沐爱河。但是，人真的能和机器人谈情说爱吗？不能，因为爱和友谊不能化约为大脑中的一组神经传递。

爱和友谊独立于个体而存在，甚至独立于两个人之间的互动而存在。当我开口说话，我是在参与我们共同进行的某种活动——语言交流。爱情、友谊和思想也是如此，这些都是由人类参与的象征性过程。没有人纯粹只为自己思考。大脑只是利用其能量参与思考而已。

对于那些认为机器也可以思考的人，我们必须这样回答他：如果机器也能思考，那就太惊人了，因为即便是大脑也不能思考！

在您看来，将人类化约为代码是人工智能的主要缺陷?

事实上，一些人工智能专家痴迷于自己的技术成就不能自拔，就像对造房子游戏着迷的小男孩一样，以致一叶障目，不见泰山。他们陷入了化约论的陷阱。

1950年，美国数学家、控制论之父诺伯特·维纳（Norbert Wiener）在《人有人的用处》（The Human use of Human Beings）一书中写道：有一天，我们或许能够“经由电报线路将人传送至彼端”。无独有偶，40年后出现的“意识上传”的超人类主义理念，也是建立在这样的幻想之上——整个现实世界可以被化约为信息单元，从一个硬件传输到另一个硬件。

在法国生物学家皮埃尔-亨利· 古永（Pierre-Henri Gouyon）的著作中，也能找到人类可以被建模成信息单元的观点。我之前还曾与他合做出版过一本访谈录 《制造人类？》（Fabriquer le vivant，2012年）。古永认为，脱氧核糖核酸（DNA）是一个代码平台，它可以转移到其他平台上。但是，当我们一门心思地认为人类可以被建模成信息单元时，我们忘记了信息单元相加后并不等于人类，没有人会有兴趣研究无法模拟的对象。

既然无法模拟的东西不会将我们带进上帝论或者蒙昧主义的泥沼，那就随便有些人怎么想吧。不可预测性和不确定性这两大原则在所有精确科学中无处不在。正因为如此，超人类主义者想要掌握全部知识，不过是新技术狂热爱好者痴人说梦。这种论调受到了相当程度的追捧，因为它能满足我们同时代人对超自然主义的渴望。超人类主义者梦想过上摆脱一切不确定性的生活。但无论是在日常生活中，还是在研究中，我们都不得不应对各种不确定性和随机性。

按照超人类理论，我们终有一天会因人工智能而获得永生。

我们目前正处于一种后现代思潮的骚动当中，我们不再去思考由化约论和个人主义占主导地位的事物之间的关系，超人类主义的承诺取代了柏拉图的洞穴理论。

对于这位希腊哲学家来说，真实生活并不存在于物质世界，而是存在于精神世界。在24个世纪之后的今天，对超人类主义者来说，真实生命不在于躯体，而在于算法。对他们来说，躯体只是表象，人类必须从中提取一组有用的信息，然后剥除它原有的缺陷。这就是他们打算实现永生的方式。

在参加科学会议时，我曾有幸见到了奇点大学（位于美国硅谷，它更像是智库，而非大学，奉行不成文的超人类主义理念）的几位成员。他们每人脖子上都挂着一个刻字的徽章，意思是他们死后，要将他们的头颅切下冻存。

我认为这代表着一种新保守主义的出现。尽管我本人就是一个生物保守主义者，因为我反对超人类主义哲学。但是，当批判我的人称我为保守论者时，他们所使用的论点论调与政治家如出一辙——一面宣称要进行现代化或改革，一面侵蚀国家的社会权利，并给那些想要捍卫自身权利的人扣上保守派的帽子！

人机结合已经成为现实。这也是一种超人类理想。

我们对人类和人机结合的认识，恐怕连皮毛都谈不上，因为今天的生物技术依然没有涉及任何生命，生命无法化约为可以模拟的物理化学过程。即便如此，人机结合已是既成事实，而且随着新技术不断创造出新产品，这一趋势定会愈演愈烈。

我们在工作中会借助大量机器，由其代为执行诸多职能。但所有这些机器都是必需的吗？这才是问题的症结所在。我之前曾对人工耳蜗植入和聋哑文化进行研究。我发现，有数百万聋哑人认为他们有自己的文化，认为这种文化未受到充分尊重。他们拒绝使用人工耳蜗，因为他们更喜欢用手语表达自己。这种能够摧毁聋哑人文化的创新器具称得上进步吗？答案并非一目了然。

最重要的是，我们必须确保人机结合是在尊重生命的前提下进行的。但是，我们今天所看到的，与其说是人机结合，倒不如说是机器对人类的殖民化。因为随着人类记忆外化，许多人什么事情都记不住了，但他们的记忆问题并非退行性病变所致。

以全球定位系统（GPS）的使用为例。巴黎和伦敦布局复杂，针对两地出租车司机的研究颇多。伦敦的出租车司机一向借助记忆导航，而巴黎的出租车司机则习惯使用导航仪。抽样心理测试发现，三年后巴黎出租车司机大脑中负责测绘时间和空间的皮质下核出现萎缩（如果不再使用导航仪，萎缩肯定可以逆转）。他们患上了某种阅读障碍症，无法根据时间和空间确定正确行车路线。这就是殖民化——这部分大脑原有功能被转授，又没有被委以任何新的功能，于是出现萎缩。

您最担心的是什么？ 

我担心创新逻辑过度成功。进步的概念在与创新理念的交锋中已然败下阵来，创新理念成功上位，但它与进步概念全然不同——它既无起点也无终点，既不好也不坏。因此，必须以批判性思维加以诘问。与我在20世纪70年代使用的奥利维蒂牌（Olivetti）打字机相比，现在的电脑文字处理器的功能要强大得多——对我而言，这是进步。但另一方面，大家智能手机上的应用程序动辄几十个，却很少有人认真自问，他们真正需要多少程序。智慧的一种表现是有意识地与诱惑力十足的娱乐和高效的新技术保持一定距离。

另外，在当今社会，宏大叙事已然沦陷，方向已然迷失。当此情形，超人类主义论调常令人非常不安——他们将人类幼稚化，而且对技术的光明前景深信不疑。在西方，科技一直是超越极限的代名词。早在17世纪，法国哲学家勒内·笛卡尔（René Descartes）就认为人的身体是一部机器，并大胆设想思想独立于身体的可能性。人类一直梦想借助科学将自我从躯体中解放出来，打破其局限性。而超人类主义者相信，他们终将实现这一梦想。

但是，这个我们终有一天成为无所不能、不知极限为何物的后有机人类的梦想，会给社会带来各种严重后果。在我看来，它甚至应该被看作是宗教原教旨主义重新抬头的迹象，而宗教原教旨主义就潜伏在人类所谓的自然价值观的身后。我把它们看作是互不相容的两种非理性形式的原教旨主义。

Humans, not machines, create meaning

In the term “artificial intelligence” (AI), the word “intelligence” is just a metaphor. While an AI may surpass humans in terms of calculating capacity, it is unable to ascribe any meaning to these calculations. For the Argentinian philosopher and psychoanalyst Miguel Benasayag, reducing the complexity of a living being to computer code is a mistake – just as the idea that machines can substitute humans is absurd.

Meyran Miguel Benasayag, interviewed by Régis Meyran

What distinguishes human intelligence from AI?

Living intelligence is not a calculating machine. It is a process that articulates affectivity, corporeality, error. In human beings, it presupposes the presence of desire and an awareness of their own history over the long term. Human intelligence is not conceivable separately from all other cerebral and corporeal processes.

Unlike humans or animals who think with the help of a brain located inside their  bodies – which itself exists in an environment – a machine produces calculations and predictions without being able to give them any meaning. The question of whether a machine can substitute humans is, in fact, absurd. It is living beings that create meaning, not computation. Many AI researchers are convinced that the difference between living intelligence and artificial intelligence is quantitative, whereas it is qualitative.

Two computers in the Google Brain programme could apparently communicate with each other in a “language” that they themselves created and which humans could not decipher. What do you think of this?

That just doesn’t make any sense. In reality, each time these two machines are launched, they systematically repeat the same sequence of information exchange. And this is not a language, it does not communicate. It is a bad metaphor, like the one that says the lock “recognizes” the key.

It’s rather like when some people say they are “friends” with a robot. There are even smartphone applications that supposedly let you “chat” with one. In Spike Jonze’s film,  Her (2013), a man is asked a series of questions, which enables his brain to be mapped. A machine then synthesizes a voice and fabricates responses that trigger a feeling of being in love, in the man. But can you really have a romantic relationship with a robot? No, because love and friendship cannot be reduced to a set of neuronal transmissions in the brain.

Love and friendship exist beyond the individual, and even beyond the interaction between two people. When I speak, I am participating in something that we share in common, language. It is the same for love, friendship and thought – these are symbolic processes in which humans participate. Nobody thinks only for themselves. A brain uses its energy to participate in thinking.

To those who believe that a machine can think, we must respond that it would be astonishing if a machine could think, because even the brain does not think!

In your opinion, is reducing a living being to code the principal failing of AI?

Indeed, some AI experts are so dazzled by their own technical achievements – rather like little boys fascinated by their construction games – that they lose sight of the big picture. They fall into the trap of reductionism.

In 1950, the American mathematician and father of cybernetics, Norbert Wiener, wrote in his book, The Human Use of Human Beings, that one day we might be able to “telegraph a man”. Four decades later, the transhumanist idea of  “mind uploading” has been built on the same fantasy – that the whole real world can be reduced to units of information that can be transmitted from one piece of hardware to another.

The idea that living beings can be modelled into units of information is also found in the work of the French biologist Pierre-Henri Gouyon, with whom I have published a book of interviews, Fabriquer le vivant? [Manufacturing the living? 2012]. Gouyon sees deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) as the platform for a code that can be transferred to other platforms. But when we think that living beings can be modelled into units of information, we forget that the sum of information units is not the living thing, and no one is interested in carrying out research on what cannot be modelled.

Taking into account that which cannot be modelled does not lead us to the idea of God, or obscurantism, whatever some may think. The principles of unpredictability and uncertainty can be found in all the exact sciences. That is why the aspiration of transhumanists for total knowledge is part of a perfectly irrational, technophile discourse.  It owes its considerable success to its ability to quench the metaphysical thirst of our contemporaries. Transhumanists dream of a life freed from all uncertainty. Yet in daily life, as in research, we have to contend with uncertainties and randomness.

According to transhumanist theory, we will one day become immortal, thanks to AI.

In our current postmodern turmoil, where we no longer ponder on the relationships between things, where reductionism and individualism dominate, the transhumanist promise takes the place of Plato’s cave. For the Greek philosopher, real life was not to be found in the physical world, but in the world of ideas. For transhumanists, twenty-four centuries later, real life lies not in the body, but in algorithms. For them, the body is just a façade – a set of useful information must be extracted from it, and then we need to get rid of its natural defects. That is how they intend to achieve immortality.

At scientific conferences, I have had the opportunity to meet several members of Singularity University [more a think-tank than a university, based in Silicon Valley in the United States, with an unwritten transhumanist approach] who wore medallions around their necks requesting that, if they died, their heads should be cryopreserved. I see this as the emergence of a new form of conservatism, even though I am the one who comes across as a bioconservative, because I am opposed to the transhumanist philosophy. But when my critics call me a reactionary, they are using the same types of arguments as politicians – who claim to be modernizing or reforming, while eroding the social rights of a country and labelling as conservative, all those who want to defend their rights!

The hybridization of humans and machines is already a reality. That is also a transhumanist ideal.

We have not even begun to understand living beings and hybridization, because biological technology today still omits almost all of life, which cannot be reduced only to those physiochemical processes that can be modelled. Having said this, the living have already been hybridized with the machine, and this will certainly be even more so, with products resulting from new technologies.

There are many machines with which we work, and to which we delegate a number of functions. But are they all necessary? That’s the whole point. I have worked on cochlear implants and the culture of deaf people. There are millions of deaf people who claim their own culture – which is not respected enough – and who refuse to have a cochlear implant because they prefer to express themselves in sign language. Does this innovation, which could crush the culture of deaf people, constitute progress? The answer is not intrinsically obvious.

Above all, we need to ensure that hybridization takes place with respect for life. However, what we are witnessing today is not so much hybridization as the colonization of the living, by machines. Because they externalize their memories, many people no longer remember anything. They have memory problems that are not the result of degenerative pathologies.

Take the case of Global Positioning Systems (GPS), for example. There have been studies on taxi drivers in Paris and London, both labyrinthine cities. While London taxi drivers navigate by orienting themselves, Parisians systematically use their GPSes. After a three-year period, psychological tests showed that the subcortical nuclei responsible for mapping time and space had atrophied in the Parisian sample (atrophies that would certainly be reversible if the person abandoned this practice). They were affected by a form of dyslexia that prevented them from negotiating their way through time and space. That is colonization – the area of the brain is atrophied because its function had been delegated, without being replaced by anything.

What worries you the most? 

I am worried about the inordinate success of the logic of innovation. The notion of progress has misfired. It has been replaced by the idea of innovation, which is something quite different – it contains neither a starting point nor an end point, and is neither good nor bad. It must, therefore, be questioned critically. Using a computer word processor is much more powerful than the Olivetti typewriter I used in the 1970s – for me this is progress. But conversely, every smartphone contains dozens of applications and few people ask themselves seriously how many of them they really need. Wisdom consists of keeping a distance from the fascination provoked by entertainment and the effectiveness of new technologies.

Also, in a disoriented society that has lost its great narratives, the transhumanist discourse is very disturbing – it infantilizes humans, and views the promises of technology without scepticism. In the West, technology has always referred to the idea of transcending limits. Already in the seventeenth century, the French philosopher René Descartes, for whom the body was a machine, had imagined the possibility of thought without a body. It is a human temptation to dream that, through science, we will free ourselves of our bodies and their limitations – something that transhumanists believe they will finally achieve.

But the dream of an all-powerful, post-organic man who knows no limits has all kinds of serious consequences for society. It seems to me that it should even be viewed as a mirror image of the rise of religious fundamentalism, which lurks behind the supposed natural values of humans. I see them as two irrational forms of fundamentalism at war.

©️该文章及图片版权归联合国教科文《信使》杂志所有

部分图片来自 Shutterstock

欢迎分享到朋友圈

转载及合作请联系我们

wechat.unescocourier@gmail.com