Richard W. Stevens

^{Type
post

Author
Richard W. Stevens
Date
July 21, 2021

Categorized
Artificial Intelligence, Economics

Tagged
Artificial Intelligence, capitalism, Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), free market, Friedrich Hayek, guaranteed universal income, I Pencil, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE)), Leonard Read, Ryan Abbott, Socialism, Steven Cherry, Tax policy, The Reasonable Robot (book), The Use of Knowledge in Society (book), Universal Basic Income}

Should Robots Pay Taxes?

_{Taxing artificial intelligence is the latest proposal to expand centralized control of human life} _{Richard W. Stevens

July 21, 2021

13

Artificial Intelligence, Economics}

In June 2021, we started considering the provocatively titled podcast transcript, “Can a Robot Be Arrested? Hold a Patent? Pay Income Taxes?”, posted on the IEEE Spectrum site. Steven Cherry interviewed Ryan Abbott, physician, lawyer, and professor, about these topics and referencing his 2019 book, The Reasonable Robot: Artificial Intelligence and the Law. We’ve discussed whether artificial intelligence (AI) systems could be charged with crimes or can hold a patent. Whether “robots should pay taxes” turns out to be the scariest question yet. Touching upon the subject only lightly in the podcast, Abbott details the problem of taxing AI in Reasonable Robot, following this thought process: Automation using AI threatens to increase human unemployment. Current U.S. tax law encourages automation through favorable treatment Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
Richard W. Stevens
Date
July 1, 2021

Categorized
Artificial Intelligence, Law

Tagged
Artificial Intelligence, IEEE, Intellectual Property, patent law, Robots, Ryan Abbott, The Reasonable Robot (book)}

Can a Robot Hold a Patent?

_{The boring answer is no, but the question raises intriguing thoughts about AI and intellectual property law} _{Richard W. Stevens

July 1, 2021

10

Artificial Intelligence, Law}

Since the late 1800s, people have been intrigued by robots. There’s something strange, wonderful, but sometimes scary about walking, talking, thinking machines, especially when in human form. Talking about “whether a robot can hold a patent” is bound to intrigue humanoids. Mute the Robot Sound Bite In June 2021, we started considering the provocatively titled podcast transcript, “Can a Robot Be Arrested? Hold a Patent? Pay Income Taxes?”, posted on the IEEE Spectrum site. Steven Cherry interviewed Ryan Abbott, physician, lawyer, and professor, about these topics and referencing his 2019 book, The Reasonable Robot: Artificial Intelligence and the Law. Our previous discussion, “Can a Robot be Arrested and Prosecuted?”, addressed criminal liability for crimes committed by artificial intelligence (AI) systems. Now we consider: “Can a Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
Richard W. Stevens
Date
June 7, 2021

Categorized
Artificial Intelligence, Law

Tagged
criminal justice, criminal law, criminal liability, Cybercrime, drones, IEEE, legal neutrality, Ryan Abbott, Steven Cherry, The Reasonable Robot (book), Voter fraud allegations (in U.S.)}

Can a Robot be Arrested and Prosecuted?

_{An Uber driver is held liable if he runs over someone. But what if a driverless taxi ran over someone?} _{Richard W. Stevens

June 7, 2021

8

Artificial Intelligence, Law}

The title, “Can a Robot Be Arrested? Hold a Patent? Pay Income Taxes?”, is bound to attract clicks and attention. Posted on the IEEE Spectrum site, a podcast transcript by that name reports Steven Cherry’s interview of Ryan Abbott about artificial intelligence and the law. Abbott, a physician, lawyer, and professor, wrote the aptly titled book, The Reasonable Robot: Artificial Intelligence and the Law, published by Cambridge University Press in 2019. To the point: Can a robot be arrested? Technically, an arrest occurs when a person is forcibly but lawfully detained. Of course, one can forcibly detain a robot – we’ve seen that done in many science fiction movies. Abbott was talking specifically about how criminal law should apply to actions taken by artificial intelligence (AI) Read More ›

Motorsport racing track and car slammed brakes sign

^{Type
post

Author
Richard W. Stevens
Date
April 28, 2021

Categorized
Artificial Intelligence, Business and Finance, Law

Tagged
Autonomous braking systems (risks), Autonomous Vehicles, Autonomous Vehicles (braking systems), Autonomous Vehicles (lawsuits), Collision Mitigation Braking System (CMBS), driverless cars, Elon Musk, Forward Collision Avoidance Braking System, Motor vehicle collisions (and AI), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), NHTSA, self-driving cars, Tesla}

Artificial Intelligence Slams on the Brakes

_{The problem of autonomous cars suddenly slamming the brakes is becoming well known and it has no known fix} _{Richard W. Stevens

April 28, 2021

9

Artificial Intelligence, Business and Finance, Law}

Having just donated your well-worn 1994 Toyota Camry to charity, you’re driving a brand new 2020 Honda sedan on a major street, enjoying air-conditioned comfort on a sunny day, with the satellite radio service narrowcasting tunes from the soundtrack of your life. Then, WHAM! In a half second, the car slows from 45 to 20 — and you never touched the brake pedal. You never saw it coming but your neck is still reminding you painfully of your whiplash injury. A close family member experienced this exact scenario just a month ago. She never touched the brake pedal. What happened? The dealership’s sales representative had not explained each and every feature of this postmodern car and certainly didn’t warn about Read More ›

Program development concept. Young man working with computer

^{Type
post

Author
Richard W. Stevens
Date
March 1, 2021

Categorized
Artificial Intelligence, Programming, Science

Tagged
Avida (software program), BASIC (programming language), Evolution (in software), InforMutation (software program), Learning (in software), Mutations (in programs), Neo-Darwinian theory and programming, Software evolution claims, Stephen C. Meyer}

Why Software Cannot Just Evolve — a Demonstration

_{The claims for Avida — a software program that is supposed to “evolve” solutions via neo-Darwinian evolution — fail the most basic test} _{Richard W. Stevens

March 1, 2021

10

Artificial Intelligence, Programming, Science}

A Michigan State University publication headlined a media release declaring: “Evolution of learning is key to better artificial intelligence” (September 19, 2019). Reportedly, researchers used the computer simulation software, Avida, to show the “evolution of learning.” On that view, artificial intelligence arises via neo-Darwinian evolution. Really? The “Sound Bites” Were Exciting… The university’s team “composed of biologists and computer scientists used a digital evolution program that allowed them to observe tens of thousands of generations of evolution in just a few hours, a feat unachievable with living systems.” According to the release: • “The results are the first demonstration that shows the evolution of associative learning in an artificial organism without a brain.” • “While the environment was simulated, the Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
Richard W. Stevens
Date
February 15, 2021

Categorized
Mathematics, Science

Tagged
Birds, Dinosaurs, Dinsosaurs to birds, Evolution (roller skates analogy), Featured, Hardware vs. software, Muscle memory, Neo-Darwinism, Software vs. hardware}

Random Evolution Doesn’t Produce Algorithmic Functions in Animals

_{A bird does not fly just because it has wings; it needs a “flight” program in its brain. Explanations of the evolution of flight do not account for that.} _{Richard W. Stevens

February 15, 2021

7

Mathematics, Science}

In a recent article “Evolution and artificial intelligence face the same basic problem,” Eric Holloway addressed the conundrum faced by artificial intelligence theorists: How can “a random process with no insight into the environment… increase information about that environment within evolving DNA sequences and/or artificial intelligence programs. By what mechanism can randomness ‘know’ anything?” Dr. Holloway’s challenge goes to the heart of the problem with the materialist worldview regarding origins, evolution, and ultimately intelligence. Software vs. hardware in your body Imagine you knew absolutely nothing about roller skates. Then you awoke this morning to find your ankles and feet permanently installed into roller skates. Instantly, everything you understood about walking and running is worthless. Getting onto your feet at all Read More ›

Futuristic design of an elevator cabin with mirrors with neon illumination and metal panels. Modern elevator design. Reflection to infinity.

^{Type
post

Author
Richard W. Stevens
Date
January 24, 2021

Categorized
Neuroscience, Philosophy of Mind

Tagged
Daniel Dennett, Infinity Mirror, Infinity mirror experiment, Kenneth R. Miller, Marvin Minsky, Materialism, Thought determinism}

The Infinity Mirror Trap: Part 2: The Thought Determinism Paradox

_{The infinity mirror experience shows that thought determinism cannot explain all human thoughts} _{Richard W. Stevens

January 24, 2021

8

Neuroscience, Philosophy of Mind}

In Part 1 of this series, we saw how the belief that “every human thought is an illusion” proves empty and powerless when trying to account for the infinity mirror experience. Part 2 here puts another view held widely by science-trained people, materialism, to the same mirror test. Materialism is the view that everything we observe results from the interplay of matter and energy. Under materialism, each human’s every thought is produced by electrochemical events in the brain. As Marvin Minsky, an artificial intelligence pioneer, wrote in Society of Mind (1988), “Everything, including that which happens in our brains, depends on these and only on these: A set of fixed, deterministic laws and a purely random set of accidents.” Philosopher Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
Richard W. Stevens
Date
January 19, 2021

Categorized
Philosophy of Mind, Science

Tagged
Featured, Illusions vs. reality, Infinity mirror experiment}

Why the Idea That the Human Mind Is an Illusion Doesn’t Work

_{There is a simple way to test whether our thoughts are all illusions} _{Richard W. Stevens

January 19, 2021

6

Philosophy of Mind, Science}

Sitting in a room with me are some smart people listening to a podcast of neuroscientist Sam Harris. They nod solemnly as Harris tells them that their thoughts are all illusions. No one has free will either, Harris says, both on the podcast and in his 2012 book, Free Will. Sir Francis Crick (1916–2004) said much the same in his 1994 work, The Astonishing Hypothesis. Harris and Crick are science-trained and Crick is a Nobelist. But popular culture influencers think the same way. The widely-read manga graphic novel artist, Masashi Kishimoto, has a character say in his 2009 work, Naruto, Every single one of us goes through life depending on and bound by our individual knowledge and awareness. And we Read More ›