Conscious Purpose versus Nature
A certain limited amount of information about what's happening in this larger part of the mind seems to be relayed to what we may call the screen of consciousness. But what gets to consciousness is selected; it is a systematic (not random) sampling of the rest.
Of course, the whole of the mind could not be reported in a part of the mind. This follows logically from the relationship between part and whole. The television screen does not give you total coverage or report of the events which occur in the whole television process; and this not merely because the viewers would not be interested in such a report,but because to report on any extra part of the total process would require extra circuitry.But to report on the events in this extra circuitry would require a still further addition of more circuitry, and so on. Each additional step toward increased consciousness will take the system farther from total consciousness. To add a report on events in a given part of the machine will actually decrease the percentage of total events reported.
We therefore have to settle for very limited consciousness, and the question arises: How is the selecting done? On what principles does your mind select that which "you" will be aware of? And, while not much is known of these principles, something is known, though the principles at work are often not themselves accessible to consciousness. First of all,much of the input is consciously scanned, but only after it has been processed by the totally unconscious process of perception. The sensory events are packaged into images and these images are then "conscious."
I, the conscious I, see an unconsciously edited version of a small percentage of what affects my retina. I am guided in my perception by purposes. I see who is attending, who is not, who is understanding, who is not, or at least I get a myth about this subject, which may be quite correct. I am interested in getting that myth as I talk. It is relevant to my purposes that you hear me.
What happens to the picture of a cybernetic system-an oak wood or an organism-when that picture is selectively drawn to answer only questions of purpose?
Consider the state of medicine today. It's called medical science. What happens is that doctors think it would be nice to get rid of polio, or typhoid, or cancer. So they devote research money and effort to focusing on these "problems," or purposes. At a certainpoint Dr. Salk and others "solve" the problem of polio. They discover a solution of bugs which you can give to children so that they don't get polio. This is the solution to the problem of polio. At this point, they stop putting large quantities of effort and money into the problem of polio and go on to the problem of cancer, or whatever it may be.
Medicine ends up, therefore, as a total science, whose structure is essentially that of a bag of tricks. Within this science there is extraordinarily little knowledge of the sort of things I'm talking about; that is, of the body as a systemically cybernetically organized self-corrective system. Its internal interdependencies are minimally understood. What has happened is that purpose has determined what will come under the inspection or consciousness of medical science.
If you allow purpose to organize that which comes under your conscious inspection, what you will get is a bag of tricks-some of them very valuable tricks. It is an extraordinary achievement that these tricks have been discovered; all that I don't argue. But still we do not know two-penn'orth, really, about the total network system. Cannon wrote a book onThe Wisdom of the Body, but nobody has written a book on the wisdom of medical science, because wisdom is precisely the thing which it lacks. Wisdom I take to be the knowledge of the larger interactive system-that system which, if disturbed, is likely to generate exponential curves of change.
Consciousness operates in the same way as medicine in its sampling of the events and processes of the body and of what goes on in the total mind. It is organized in terms of purpose. It is a short-cut device to enable you to get quickly at what you want; not to act with maximum wisdom in order to live, but to follow the shortest logical or causal path toget what you next want, which may be dinner; it may be a Beethoven sonata; it may besex. Above all, it may be money or power.
But you may say: "Yes, but we have lived that way for a million years." Consciousness and purpose have been characteristic of man for at least a million years, and may havebeen with us a great deal longer than that. I am not prepared to say that dogs and cats are not conscious, still less that porpoises are not conscious.
So you may say: "Why worry about that?"
But what worries me is the addition of modern technology to the old system. Today the purposes of consciousness are implemented by more and more effective machinery,transportation systems, airplanes, weaponry, medicine, pesticides, and so forth.
Conscious purpose is now empowered to upset, the balances of the body, of society, and of the biological I world around us. A Pathology-a loss of balance-is threatened.
I think that much of what brings us here today is basically related to the thoughts that I have been putting before you. On the one hand, we have the systemic nature of the individual human being, the systemic nature of the culture in which he lives, and the systemic nature of the biological, ecological system around him; and, on the other hand,the curious twist in the systemic nature of the individual man whereby consciousness is,almost of necessity, blinded to the systemic nature of the man himself. Purposive consciousness pulls out, from the total mind, sequences which do not have the loop structure which is characteristic of the whole systemic structure. If you follow the"common-sense" dictates of consciousness you become, effectively, greedy and unwise-again I use "wisdom" as a word for recognition of and guidance by a knowledge of the total systemic creature.
Lack of systemic wisdom is always punished. We may say that the biological systems-the individual, the culture, and the ecology-are partly living sustainers of their component cells or organisms. But the systems are nonetheless punishing of any species unwise enough to quarrel with its ecology. Call the systemic forces "God" if you will.
En relación con la regulación jurídica de la Inteligencia Artificial, los límites sistémicos precisados por Bateson hace sesenta años son inescapables:
1) En cualquier sistema o conjunto de sistemas jurídicos regulatorios, una regulación extra de la aplicación de la IA en los mismos solo puede llevarse a cabo con los "límites cuantitativos de conciencia" aplicables a la supervisión de los sistemas regulatorios previos, a los que ahora debe añadirse la supervisión de la aplicación de la IA en dichos sistemas. Ello representa, necesariamente, una sobrecarga de los "límites cuantitativos de conciencia" previos y una, necesariamente, menor "conciencia" o "ajuste" en la aplicación de los sistemas regulatorios.El resultado de un nuevo "circuito" en la terminología cibernética de Bateson
2) Los defensores opondrán que la IA libera "conciencia" mediante la automatización de procesos en los sistemas jurídicos regulatorios que previamente requerían la misma
La respuesta a lo anterior es sencilla y directa: la automatización "liberadora" requiere siempre un "propósito" y su revisión está sujeta a la evaluación total y consciente del resultado del propósito automatizado y su compatibilidad con el propósito instrumentado y sus límites
Como el resto de la regulación juridica no automática permanece igual, la nueva sobrecarga necesariamente los "límites cuantitativos de conciencia" del mismo y lo hace en formas normalmente ocultas a los procesos conscientes del sistema (es automática)
3) Se pone así de relieve, también, que en los sistemas expertos jurídicos el límite "paradójico" "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" deja de ser un problema vinculado a los controles y contrapesos no automáticos internos al sistema jurídico para convertirse en una regresión sistémica sin final: unos sistemas controlan a otros pero no hay, ni puede haber un "controlador" al mando de la IA
Lo cual no quiere decir que la instrumentación de la IA no pueda cumplir sus "propósitos" diseñados con una menor "conciencia" de cómo ello sucede y se logra (simplemente "no aparece en la pantalla de TV")
Es por esta razón que Bateson alertaba acerca de que Today the purposes of consciousness are implemented by more and more effective machinery, así como de que esa implementación implica necesariamente retirar del escrutinio de la conciencia sequences which do not have the loop structure which is characteristic of the whole systemic structure.
Un ejemplo
El artículo 12.4 de la reciente Ley Orgánica del Derecho de Defensa establece:
Las personas tienen derecho a conocer con transparencia los criterios de inteligencia artificial empleados por las plataformas digitales, incluidas las que facilitan la elección de profesionales de la abogacía, sociedades de intermediación y cualesquiera otras entidades o instituciones que presten servicios jurídicos
El precepto no establece una obligación legal de hacer públicos los criterios de inteligencia artificial por parte de las plataformas. Tampoco regula cómo se ejerece este derecho, ni quien supervisa su cumplimiento.
Si asumimos que su invocación se añade a los motivos de revisión de una decisión en cualquiera de los sistemas jurídicos aplicables, resulta que la misma ha visto incrementada su "límite cuantitativo de conciencia" y ello no solo por la necesidad de tener en cuenta esta cuestión adicional, sino por la forma adecuada de valorar cómo los "criterios de inteligencia artificial empleados por las plataformas digitales" afectadas afectan no ya al derecho a conocerlos sino al respeto a los derechos objeto de los criterios de inteligencia artificial
¿Qué sucede con los criterios de inteligencia artificial efectivamente empleados por los organismos públicos y privados al margen de las plataformas digitales? ¿No están afectados por la transparecencia? ¿Cómo se conocen los criterios? ¿Cómo se justifican, deciden y pueden ser revisados? ¿Cuáles son sus límites?
No comments:
Post a Comment