Local Search

Hill-Climbing
 Keeps track of one current state (no backtracking)
 Does not look ahead beyond the immediate neighbors of the current state(greedy)
 On each iteration moves to the neighboring state with highest value (steepest ascent)
 Terminates when a peak is reached (no neighbor has a higher value)

o Plateau is a flat area of the state-space landscape (flat local maximum and shoulder)

Improvements
 Allow for a limited number of sideways moves (if on plateau that is really a shoulder)
‣ Higher success rate + Higher number of moves

 Stochastic hill climbing random selection between the uphill moves, with probability related to
steepness.
‣First-choice hill climbing random testing of successors until one is found that is better than the
current state.

‣Good strategy when testing all successors is costly

 Random-restart hill climbing do several hill-climbing searches from randomly selected states.
‣If each hill-climbing search has probability of success p then solution will be found on average
after 1/p restarts.

‣Will eventually find the correct solution because goal state will be initial state
-------------------------
If elevation = objective function -> find the global maximum or highest peak -> hill climbing

If elevation = cost -> find the global minimum or lowest valley -> gradient descent

Stimulated Annealing
o Problem with hill climbing: efficient but will get stuck in a local maximum.
o Problem with random walk: most inefficient but will eventually find the local maximum.
o Combination of both -> simulated annealing (completer and more efficient)

 Move to randomly chosen neighbor state

  If utility is higher, always move to that state
 If utility is lower, move to that with probability p<1
 Probability of a move to a worse state
o Becomes less likely the worse the move makes the situation
o Becomes less likely as a temperature decrease
Local Beam Search
 Selects the k best successors at every step
 If k=1 -> hill climbing
 If k=>2 -> parallel hill climbing process
 Stochastic local beam search
 Selects k successors at random every step
 Probability of selection is a function of utility (aka fitness)

Genetic Algorithms
 Starts with k randomly selected states(population)
 Each state (or individual) is encoded as a string
 Each state is rated by objective function (aka fitness function)
 Two pairs are selected at random with probability of selection increasing with fitness
 Crossover point for pair is chosen at random
 Offspring are created by combining string at crossover point
 Small probability of random mutation
Combine
 Uphill tendency and Random exploration
 Exchange of information between search threads
 Biggest advantage comes from crossover operation (no advantage if code is initially perfumed)
 Good application requires careful engineering of code
Summary for Local Search
 For many search problems we do not need the best possible solution, or the best solution is not
achievable at all.

 Local search methods are a useful tool because they operate on complete search problems without
keeping track of all the states.

 Simulated annealing adds a stochastic element to hill climbing and give optimal solutions in some
circumstances.

 Stochastic local beam search provides a first approach to the generation and selection of states.

The uninformed (BFS&DFS)and informed(A* or best-first search )search algorithms that we have seen are
designed to explore search spaces systematically.
- They keep one or more paths in memory and by record which alternatives have been
explored at each point along the path.
- When a goal is found, the path to that goal also constitutes a solution to the problem.
- In many problems, however, the path to the goal is irrelevant.

Adversarial Search
Games most commonly studied in AI are:
 Deterministic (chess (lack of randomness in the game ) )
 Two-player (card and board games)
 Turn-taking (ball catching or kicking games)
 Perfect information (chess, tic-tac-toe)
 Zero-sum(poker)

Approaches to modelling adversarial games

The economic model is good for understanding overall system dynamics, the
environment approach is useful for dealing with uncertainty and probabilistic
behaviors, and the game-tree approach is best when detailed, move-by-move analysis
is needed for strategy development.
Two-player zero-sum games
Formalization:
1. S₀: Initial state of the game
2. To-Move(s): player whose turn it is to move in state s
- This indicates which player has the move in a given state of the game. If it's player one's turn to move, then
`To-Move(s)` would return player one.

3. Action(s): Set of legal moves in state s

- This is the set of all possible moves that can legally be made by the player whose turn it is, given the current
state of the game. For instance, in checkers, this would include all the possible moves a player could make with
their pieces at that point in the game.

4. Result(s, a): Transition model, defining the state resulting from taking action a in state s

5. Is-Terminal(s): True, when the game is over, false otherwise

6. Utility(s, p): numeric value to player p when the game ends in state s
- This assigns a numerical value to the outcome of the game for a player `p` when the game ends in state `s`.

Tic-Tac-Toe

Ordinary search vs Adversarial search

 In a normal search such as for the 8-puzzle, we could end the game by finding a path to a good end
position.
 However, in adversarial search, the other player co-determines the path.
Minimax search

 Two players, MAX, and MIN, take turns in the game.

 MAX must plan ahead against each of MIN’s possible moves (a move by a player is also called a ply)
 If we are at a terminal node -> utility of terminal node
 If it’s MAX’s turn to move -> maximum of descendant’s utilities
 It it’s MIN’s turn to move -> minimum of descendant’s utilities

MINIMAX search Algorithm

 Depth-first exploration of the tree

 Recursively descends each branch of the tree
 Computes utility for terminal nodes
 Goes back up, assigning minimax value to each node

Complexity of MINIMAX

 Time complexity of MINIMAX is exponential: O(bm)

b = (average) branching factor
m = maximum depth of the tree
  More efficient way to search the game tree -> Alpha-Beta pruning

Alpha-Beta pruning

 α = the value of the best (i.e., highest value) choice we have found so
far at any choice point along the path for MAX. Think: α = “at least.”
 β = the value of the best (i.e., lowest value) choice we have found so
far at any choice point along the path for MIN. Think: β = “at most.”
 Move ordering:
• If we have information on which moves are generally better than
others, we can improve alpha-beta pruning by first evaluating the
utility of nodes which are considered good moves.
• For instance, in chess: capture > threat > forward move > backward
move

Transposition tables

In games like chess, the same positions can occur as a result of different moves -> this is called a transposition
 Exploring the search-tree from that point again would be at least double work
 Results of search for positions can be stored in a transposition table
 Lookup from transposition table instead of search
 Chess positions can be converted into unique indexes using special hashing techniques so that lookup
has O(1) time complexity

Heuristic strategies
Shannon (1950)
 Type A strategy (historically used for chess)
Consider wide but shallow part of tree and estimate the utility at that point
 Type B strategy (historically used for Go)
Consider promising parts of the tree deeply and ignore unpromising paths

Heuristic Alpha-Beta Tree Search

 Can treat non-terminal nodes as if they were terminal
 Utility function, which is certain, is replaced by an evaluation function, which provides an
estimate
o E.g., queen=9, knight=3, bishop=3, rook=5, pawn=1….
o Typically, a weighted linear function of values
o …. but can be any function of the features
 H-MINIMAX(s,d)
o If cut-off reached -> compute expected utility of node (true utility for
terminal nodes)
o If it’s MAX’s turn to move -> maximum of descendant’s expected utilities
o If it’s MIN’s turn to move -> minimum of descendant’s expected utilities
Forward Pruning
 Prune moves that appear to be bad (based on experience)
o Type B strategy
o PROBCUT: Forward pruning version of alpha-beta search that prunes nodes that
are probably outside the window
o Late move reduction reduces depth to which ordered moves are searched. Backs up
full search if higher alpha value is found

Monte Carlo Tree Search

Complexity of games like Go is far greater than that of chess:

• Go starts with a branching factor of 361 and continues with an average branching
factor of 150.
• Alpha-beta search is useless because it would not be possible to see far ahead.
• Instead, multiple simulations of complete games are played-out, starting from a
given position.
• Expected utility of a move is percentage of play-outs with a win given that move.
• Usually combined with exploitation of past experiences (lookup).
• Combined with reinforcement learning - neural-network based game programs
that learns by playing against itself (e.g... Alpha Zero)

Summary for Adversarial Search

 Games can be formalized by their initial state, the legal actions, the result of each action, a terminal
test, and a utility function

 The MINIMAX algorithm can be determining the optimal-moves for two-player, discrete,
deterministic, turn-taking, zero-sum games, with perfect information

 Alpha-beta pruning can be removed subtrees that are provably irrelevant

 Heuristic evaluation functions must be used when the entire game-tree cannot be explored (i.e., when
the utility of the terminal nodes can’t be computed)

 Monte-Carlo tree search is an alternative which plays-out entire games repeatedly and chooses the next
move based on the proportion of winning playouts

Problem Solving Under Uncertainty

How can we build machines that can handle the uncertainty of the natural world?
(“in this world noting can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”- Benjamin Franklin 1789)

Dead-reckoning is the process of using information about direction, speed, and elapsed
time to calculate new location.
Odometry refers to the use of motion sensors, such as measuring wheel rotation.

Point: Faced with uncertainty, we need to make inductive inferences.

And if some inductive inferences are better than others, a number of questions emerge:
1. How should we choose between competing explanations? What does "good" mean?
2. What principles should we use in order to make good inductive inferences?
3. What is a rational solution to the problem of inductive inference?

Making accurate predictions is hard

"Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future."
— Niels Bohr.
Why?
1. There is likely to be noise in the data.
2. There are yearly variations in temperature.
3. We want to capture what is systematic in London's temperature.
4. We want to ignore what is accidental in London's temperature.
Why?
• What is systematic is likely to be observed again.
• What is accidental is not likely to be observed again.
• Our goal is to make accurate predictions, not describe the data exactly.

Summary
Key point: Reasoning about an uncertain world is difficult!
Four examples:
• Example 1: How many boxes were behind the tree?
• Example 2: Where am I?
• Example 3: How can we predict London's temperature?
• Example 4: Can we predict the USD/Euro exchange ra

Quantifying Uncertainty
Acting under Uncertainty

Rational agents with perfect knowledge of the environment

 Can find an optimal solution by exploring the complete environment
 Can find a good (but perhaps suboptimal) solution by exploring part of the environment using
heuristics

What should agents do if they don’t have perfect information?

 Maximize performance by keeping track of the relative importance of different outcomes and likehood
that this outcome will be achieved. (Blackjack example)

Most of the time we use deductive reasoning, but logic is insufficient

Why is logic insufficient?

 Laziness: it’s too much work to make and use the rules.
 Theoretical Ignorance: we don’t know everything there is to know.
 Practical Ignorance: we don’t have access to all the information
 In that case we replace certainty(logic) with degree of belief(probability)

Probability Theory
 Probability statements are usually made with regard to a knowledge state.
 Actual state: patient has a cavity or patient does not have a cavity
 Knowledge state: probability that the patient has a cavity if we haven’t observed her yet.

Decision theory = probability theory + utility theory

Principle of maximum expected utility (MEU)

 An agent is rational if and only if it chooses the action that yields the highest expected utility.

Expected = average of outcome utilities, weighted by probability of the outcome

Example: Choose between an 80% chance of getting 4000$ and a 100% chance of getting 3000$
Probability Terminological Map

General inference procedure

Conditional Independence

P (X, Y | Z) = P (X | Z) * P (Y | Z)

Scaling up inference?
Summary
• Logic is insufficient to act rationally under uncertainty.
• Decision theory states that under uncertainty, the best action is the one that maximizes
the expected utility of the outcomes.
• Probability theory formalizes the notions we require to infer the expected utility of
actions under uncertainty.
• Given a full joint probability distribution, we can formalize a general inference procedure.
• Bayes' rule allows for inferences about unknown probabilities from conditional
probabilities.
• Neither the general inference procedure, nor Bayes' rule scale up well.
• Assuming conditional independence allows for the full joint probability distribution to be
factored into smaller conditional distributions → Naive Bayes.

Genetic Algorithm:

Probabilistic Reasoning / Bayesian Networks

Graphs/Networks

Mathematical structures used to model pairwise (because any edge in the graph tells us something about how
the nodes are connected) relations between objects
 Types

Acyclic graphs are always directed, you

cannot end up at the same point.

There is at least one cyclic in the graph

and if you decide to follow it you will
end up at the starting point.

Directed connected graph without directed cycles is a tree. It does not need to look like a tree.

Real life examples:

Transfer Serial Duplication Parallel Duplication

-when you have -when you have something -when you have something and
something in a node, and you have it in a node, you have it in a node, by
and you follow an edge by following the edge it following the edge it also appears
and the thing you had also appears in the other in the other node (from one-to-
goes the new one node (from one to other, not many others)
to many others)

Shortest Path Package Delivery Mitosis = cell division

(Unique nodes and edges)
Path Hand-me-down Sexually Transmitted Web Server
(Unique nodes and edges)) Clothing Diseases -Whatever is served from the web
- The previous owner - Person can transmit the server on your CP remains on the
won’t wear these disease only once to one web server
clothes again. person
-It can be transmitted to many,
-Once you have it and you many different machines at once.
transmit it to another
person, you still have it,
BUT you cannot have it
second time

Trail Book lending Gossip Chain Letters

(Unique edges) - When you hear a gossip, - Any kind of scams that involving
you share it with someone sending letters to a bunch of
new people and then you will get
money in return if you only pay
money to the previous person

Walk Money Exchange Emotional Support Ideology Transfer

(No restrictions) - You can exchange - Someone makes you feel -Something that can be done by
money with the same better, and you make talking to different people as one
person and then do the someone feeling better, at once
reverse transaction any there is no certain way -There are no restrictions about
way you want the way the message is transferred
It is P.D. because when I believe
sth and I tell what it is, it’s not
gone from me

Bayesian Network

o How do we decide which

variables have a direct influence
on each other?
- There is no easy way to do it. It
is what is called domain
knowledge and it rely on the
expertise of somebody or on your
own expertise to define which
variables have an influence on
other variables or not.

Example:
We want to know the probability that the alarm has
sounded, but neither a burglary nor an earthquake has
occurred, and both John and Mary call.
P(a, -b, -e, j, m)
Constructing Bayesian Network
Two ways to understand the semantics of a Bayesian
Network

 As an encoding of conditional independence statements. Useful to design inference procedure (i.e.,

answer questions about the probability of events)

 As a representation of the joint probability distribution. Useful to construct networks

Chain Rule

According to chain rule:

P(B, E, A, J, M) = P(M|B, E, A,J) P(J|B,E, A) P(A|B, E) P(E|B) P(B)
Reduced by conditional independence:
P(B, E, A, J, M) = P(M|A) P(J|A) P(A|B, E) P(B) P(E)

DIRECTED ACYCLIC GRAPH,

in which the nodes have no
influence from earlier parents.

*1 would be wrong if there was

a connection between 1 and 4

Why is 2 wrong? -the graph is

not fully directed (no connection
between weather and the other
nodes)
How to correctly constructed
network:
Most relationships between parents nodes and their descendants are not completely arbitrary.

Deterministic nodes
 Value of the nodes is specified exactly by the
value of is parents, with no uncertainty
 Logic is insufficient in this way we do not need
probability.
 We do not create probability tables if there is an
easier way.

Summary
• Bayesian networks are Directed Acyclic Graphs
• Each node corresponds to a random variable
• Each node has a conditional distribution, given its parents
• Bayesian networks can represent full joint probability
distributions, but can be
exponentially smaller by exploiting conditional
independence relations.
• Constructing Bayesian Networks takes advantage of the
chain rule, which is a
generalization of the product rule.
• Conditional distributions can be represented more compactly, e.g., by
making use of deterministic functions, probability density functions, or
discretization.

Discussion: Searle

Connectionism (symbolic vs. subsymbolic AI, parallel distributed processing) = a movement in cognitive science
that hopes to explain intellectual abilities using artificial neural networks. Symbolic AI = the term for the
collection of all methods in artificial intelligence research that are based on high-level symbolic (human-
readable) representations of problems, logic and search. In subsymbolic AI, Implicit representation is derived
from the learning from experience with no symbolic representation of rules and properties. Parallel
distributed processing = a type of information processing where large numbers of computing units perform
their calculations simultaneously. Computational units can receive and process multiple inputs and transmit
multiple outputs.

Syntax = arrangement of words and phrases to make well-formed sentences in a language.

Semantics = the meaning of words and how to combine words into meaningful phrases and sentences.

Behaviourism (and how it’s implicit in Strong-AI) = the theory that human and animal behaviour can be
explained in terms of conditioning, without appeal to thoughts or feelings. Behaviour is seen as the outward
expression of what goes on in the mind, so, according to the strong AI view, if a machine behaves as if it has
intelligence/a mind, then it must be intelligent/have a mind.

Searle’s main points

1. Some AI researchers believe that by finding the right program they will create a thinking, conscious
machine.
2. Searle’s Chinese room argument: Running the right program is not sufficient for a thinking machine.
3. The Chinese room runs the right program, but has no understanding of Chinese.
4. Searle is not arguing against the possibility of creating a thinking machine, he is arguing against the
idea that doing this is merely a matter of coming up with the right program.
5. If we are to construct thinking machines with consciousness, we also need to consider the nature of
the machinery that runs the program.
6. What kind of machinery do we need?
7. Will it ever be possible to “measure” consciousness?

4 counter arguments

1: the systems reply

The person in the room doesn’t understand Chinese, but the system as a whole does understand Chinese.
Searle is playing the role of a CPU, but the system has other components like a memory etc.
E.g., we don’t say the brain understands and feels love, we say that people understand and feel love.

• Searle’s response: The person in the room could internalize the whole system, and would still not
understand Chinese.

2: the robot reply

The person in the room doesn’t understand Chinese, but if the system were connected to the world like a
robot, with sensors etc, then it would understand Chinese. This would establish a causal connection between
the world and the structures being manipulated.

• Searle responds: All these sensors provide is information. There is no difference between this information
and information passed into the room in the form of questions.

3: the brain simulator reply

What if the program precisely simulated the brain of Chinese speaker, including the neural architecture and
the state of every neuron. Then then the system would understand Chinese.

• Searle responds: Whatever system the person in the room is simulating, it will still only be a simulation.

4: the other minds reply

The only way we attribute understanding to other people is through their behaviour. There is no other way.
Therefore, we must decide if we attribute understanding to machines in the same way, only through their
behaviour.
  Searle responds: “The problem in this discussion is not about how I know that other people have
cognitive states, but rather what it is that I am attributing to them when I attribute cognitive states to
them.”
 There is a difference: We know machines are just manipulating symbols without knowing what they
mean, but we are not sure about people.

Overview: is this a well-formed question?

 Do we have a single example of an agent that we know to be conscious?

 Is there any scientific way in which we could distinguish conscious and non-conscious
agents? Strong AI vs. weak AI: an inconsistency?

Searle considers 7 replies to the Chinese Room argument (points a-g on

pages 29-30). Summarize and elaborate on each view in one paragraph,
as well as explaining why the group agrees with (1) Searle, (2) the
opposing view, (3) both views, or (4) neither view.

1-Understanding something comes from the system around us and it actually

doesn’t entail the person realizing that they understand it. We believe that this is
close to impossible because we view ‘understanding’ as actually applying thought
processes and consideration. To sum it up, in order to understand something we
need to actively reflect on it.
2 -Understanding of the surrounding system is innate and unconscious
(happens via internal subsystems). This opinion seems plausible as people
possess innate knowledge. For example individuals do not learn that they are
thirsty, they just know it.
3- Understanding the system isn’t the main objective, we’re a mere
contribution to the system making it whole and giving it meaning. We agree with
this opinion as cooperation of systems brings a better understanding of the
system since different stance points are presented.
4- Computation is strictly analogical. Complicated brain processes can be
reduced to formal symbol manipulation in machines. We disagree with this
statement as the brain is much more complicated, for example it can process
emotions, thoughts, etc.
5 - Programs are conscious. This statement seems a little bit too far fetched at
least given all the technology available nowadays. Yes, there is a theory of
emerging agents (using the trial-error learning method for example) , but seems
implausible as intelligent agents will (for now at least) need a little ‘push’ and
 continuous support and supervision from humans.
6-” F” talks about how computers could attach meaning to the symbols
(semantics) and therefore act upon the environmental stimuli. These processes,
however, are still rule-governed (and there isn’t true randomness in computer
systems as well), therefore we agree with Searle.
7- Knowledge can be replicated by ‘imitating’ the system. We agree since
knowledge is represented by mere facts and intelligence is the one thing that for
now at least cannot be replicated.

In what senses, if any, does Searle's argument pose a problem to AI?

Your group should compose a single response to this question in no
more than two paragraphs. If group members disagree, describe the
disagreement. For the sake of this exercise, we encourage
disagreement!

Searle points out that simply running a computer program on a symbol-

manipulating device is not enough to guarantee cognition and precisely hits the
mark. A potential problem with this is that one could never achieve true AI, as the
human brain is too sophisticated a unit and duplication seems implausible for the
time being.

Discussion: Ethics

Two main concerns

1. Protecting us from AI: As AI penetrates deeper into society, what ethical and moral issues does this
pose?
2. Protecting the rights of AI systems: Should AI systems have moral status, and if so, when and why?
What are the implications?

Three scenarios

1. The current scenario: Approaching Artificial General Intelligence.

2. The scenario when we attribute moral status to machines.
3. The scenario when minds with “exotic properties” exist.

Scenario 1: approaching artificial general intelligence (AGI)

 Because AGI aims at general abilities, AI systems of the future are likely to carry out tasks that we
didn’t design them for. Will they behave ethically when carrying out these tasks?
 The moral/ethical implications of AGI systems need to be verified before they are deployed. How can
we do this? The systems must somehow think in the same way that trustworthy designer would.
 Ethical cognitive considerations need to be made part of the engineering problem, rather than being
considered as an afterthought.

Scenario 2: machines with moral status

Two properties seem relevant when attributing moral status:

1. Sentience: The ability to feel.

2. Sapience: The ability to think, reason, and be self-aware.

Do both need to be established for moral status?Non-discrimination principles when attributing moral status:

 Principle of substrate non-discrimination: All else being equal, an agents sentience or sapience
should be judged independent of the physical substrate on which it is implemented.
  Principle of ontogeny non-discrimination. All else being equal, an agents sentience or sapience
should be judged independently of the process that created the agent.

Scenario 3: minds with exotic properties

We need to be open minded about what kind of systems might possess sentience and sapience. The
notions of morality and ethics has always evolved, fitting the concerns of the time. This is likely to
continue, and AI may play a significant role in shaping future notions of ethics and morality.

Two exotic properties:

 Objective vs. subjective time: Should machines that think faster than us go to prison for a shorter
period of time?
 Accelerated reproduction: Should machines that reproduce faster than others be subject to different
moral codes?

Bostrom and Yudkowsky propose how we should decide if a machine should

have moral status. Summarize and elaborate on their proposal in one
paragraph. In addition, summarize in one paragraph why the group agrees, or
disagrees, with this proposal.

Two criteria are commonly proposed as being importantly linked to moral status, either
separately or in combination: sentience and sapience (or personhood). These may be
characterized roughly as follows:

 Sentience: the capacity for phenomenal experience or qualia, such as the

capacity to feel pain and suffer.
 Sapience: a set of capacities associated with higher intelligence, such as self-
awareness and being a reason-responsive agent.

We strongly agree with this proposal, simply because there is no other criteria relevant to
have a moral status.

Bostrom and Yudkowsky propose three principles (defined on pages 7, 8, and

11). Summarize and elaborate on each of these principles, using one paragraph
for each principle. In addition, for each of these principles, summarize one
argument for, and one argument against, the principle.

 Principle of Substrate Non-Discrimination

“If two beings have the same functionality and the same conscious experience, and
differ only in the substrate of their implementation, then they have the same moral
status.”

Summary: AI and humans can have the same conscious experience. The only difference
between them is the material they are composed of.
For: The precondition of same functionality and same conscious experience are required
to make sure that the two entities have at least some common propensities and idea of
how the world is. This argument implies that difference in moral status does not arise
simply due to difference in substrate. If we have the presupposition that the theory of
mind we use to judge whether other humans have a conscious experience similar to us
does not necessarily depend upon their physical appearance, then the same is true for
entities other than humans if we have judged that they have similar conscious
experience. If a human consciousness is uploaded into a computer chip but still has the
same conscious experience judged by the functionality and propensities that they have,
then the same is true for an AI. Considerations other than moral status can be used to
differentiate, like we use among humans (family members vs strangers), simply not the
moral status itself.

Against: We will never know if an AI has the same conscious experience as a human,
because therefore we would need to be able to be the AI to experience what it is
experiencing. So it is impossible to compare experiences.

Initially, even if two people who experienced the same function and conscious experience
may not necessarily have the same morals, regardless of how they are put into practice.
Machines hence can encode an implicit similar algorithm as human functionality and
conscious experiences, but still an algorithm. It's just matrix multiplication at the end of
the day(no consciousness although we are unable to clearly define it). The author(s) of
how the Ai would conceive rules and moralities are conscious entities who carefully
consider their reactions and fully comprehend the inputs. Ai in this case is simply acting,
and even though they are “physically or consciously” there, a conscious has already
responded to those inputs morally.

 Principle of Ontogeny Non-Discrimination

“If two beings have the same functionality and the same consciousness experience, and
differ only in how they came into existence, then they have the same moral status.”

Summary: A being’s moral status is not affected by how it came into existence. The
moral standing of that being is not undermined, reduced, or altered by deliberate
design.So, The Principle of Ontogeny Non-Discrimination is consistent with the claim that
the creators or owners of an AI system with moral status may have special duties to their
artificial mind which they do not have to another artificial mind, even if the minds in
question are qualitatively similar and have the same moral status.
For: If two beings have the same consciousness experience and functionality therefore
they have the same quality of subjective experience and even same possibility of use.
Although they differ in how they came into existence they have the same moral status.
As an example I would provide: If we would make a human clone. The clone would not
remember its birth the same as we do not also it would have the exact same functions as
we do. Therefore the clone could think he is human. So if we would be able to find only
difference and it would be the way of birth we could argue if the clone is human but we
would have to assign the same moral status.

Against: AI shouldn’t have a moral status because it, while it can be argued it could
experience reality the same way humans do, does not have a brain, which is responsible
for consciousness and intelligence. People do not oppose causal factors such as assisted
delivery, in vitro fertilization, etc. in humans when deciding whether new humans
deserve a moral status, but they possess a brain which is the main prerequisite both for
sentience and sapience An AI cannot have a moral status in my opinion. First of all, it
cannot reproduce emotions like humans, they don’t feel pain, regret or sorrow after
being done wrong for example. Secondly AI machines don’t know what is morally wrong
or right. A human can for example deduct that stealing is wrong, but a machine cannot
decide that for itself, without human intervention.

 Principle of Subjective Rate of Time

“In cases where the duration of an experience is of basic normative significance, it is the
experience’s subjective duration that counts.”

Summary: The idea of whole brain emulation or “uploading” is the foundation of the
principle of the subjective rate of time. “Uploading” refers to the concept that one day
there will be invented a technology able to transfer human intelligence from its organic
form onto a digital computer. If uploaded to a faster computer the consciousness will
perceive the external world as if it were slowed down and therefore develop a subjective
sense of time that is moving faster than the actual time. From there arises the question
when judging time should we use the subjective perspective that the uploads have or
should we use the objective perspective that we all perceive.

For: I agree that humans and computers experience time differently and this time of
‘reflection’ sometimes is crucial. AI could experience time differently from humans, at
least in its uploading and processing of information (which it does much faster compared
to a human being). For example, humans are put into prison to reflect on what they have
done. This entails that fairness requires us to take subjective experiences into account.

Against:Time could not be viewed subjectively. Humans and AI may experience time
subjectively differently, but time can also be viewed subjectively differently between
humans. "Time flies when you're having fun", fits this well. Besides, it is not possible to
measure something subjective objectively. So it will be difficult to take subjective
experiences into account. Because of the experiential difference of time between people
themselves and between AI, it would be better to assume one objective tim