Virtue reliabilists argue that an agent can only gain knowledge if she responsibly employs a reliable belief-forming process. This in turn demands that she is either aware that her process is reliable or is sensitive to her process’s reliability in some other way. According to a recent argument in the philosophy of mind, sometimes a cognitive mechanism (i.e. precision estimation) can ensure that a belief-forming process is only employed when it’s reliable. If this is correct, epistemic responsibility can sometimes be (...) explained entirely on the subpersonal level. In this paper, I argue that the mechanism of precision estimation–the alleged new variety of epistemic responsibility–is a more ubiquitous phenomenon than epistemic responsibility. I show that precision estimation operates at levels that are not always concerned with the epistemic domain. Lastly, I broaden this argument to explain how all subpersonal epistemologies are likely to fall prey to the problem of demarcating cognitive agency and the problem of attributing beliefs. (shrink)

In the last 20 years the Turing test has been left further behind by new developments in artificial intelligence. At the same time, however, these developments have revived some key elements of the Turing test: imitation and adversarialness. On the one hand, many generative models, such as generative adversarial networks, build imitators under an adversarial setting that strongly resembles the Turing test. The term “Turing learning” has been used for this kind of setting. On the other hand, AI benchmarks are (...) suffering an adversarial situation too, with a ‘challenge-solve-and-replace’ evaluation dynamics whenever human performance is ‘imitated’. The particular AI community rushes to replace the old benchmark by a more challenging benchmark, one for which human performance would still be beyond AI. These two phenomena related to the Turing test are sufficiently distinctive, important and general for a detailed analysis. This is the main goal of this paper. After recognising the abyss that appears beyond superhuman performance, we build on Turing learning to identify two different evaluation schemas: Turing testing and adversarial testing. We revisit some of the key questions surrounding the Turing test, such as ‘understanding’, commonsense reasoning and extracting meaning from the world, and explore how the new testing paradigms should work to unmask the limitations of current and future AI. Finally, we discuss how behavioural similarity metrics could be used to create taxonomies for artificial and natural intelligence. Both testing schemas should complete a transition in which humans should give way to machines—not only as references to be imitated but also as judges—when pursuing and measuring machine intelligence. (shrink)

The primary goal of this essay is to provide a comprehensive overview and analysis of the various relations between material artifacts and the embodied mind. A secondary goal of this essay is to identify some of the trends in the design and use of artifacts. First, based on their functional properties, I identify four categories of artifacts co-opted by the embodied mind, namely (1) embodied artifacts, (2) perceptual artifacts, (3) cognitive artifacts, and (4) affective artifacts. These categories can overlap and (...) so some artifacts are members of more than one category. I also identify some of the techniques (or skills) we use when interacting with artifacts. Identifying these categories of artifacts and techniques allows us to map the landscape of relations between embodied minds and the artifactual world. Second, having identified categories of artifacts and techniques, this essay then outlines some of the trends in the design and use of artifacts, focussing on neuroprosthetics, brain-computer interfaces, and personalisation algorithms nudging their users towards particular epistemic paths of information consumption. (shrink)

According to virtue epistemology, the main aim of education is the development of the cognitive character of students (Pritchard, 2014, 2016). Given the proliferation of technological tools such as ChatGPT and other LLMs for solving cognitive tasks, how should educational practices incorporate the use of such tools without undermining the cognitive character of students? Pritchard (2014, 2016) argues that it is possible to properly solve this ‘technology-education tension’ (TET) by combining the virtue epistemology framework with the theory of extended cognition (...) (EXT) (Clark and Chalmers, 1998). He argues that EXT enables us to consider tools as constitutive parts of the students’ cognitive system, thus preserving their cognitive character from technologically induced cognitive diminishment. The first aim of this paper is to show that this solution is not sufficient to solve the TET. Second, I aim to offer a complementary and more encompassing framework of tool-use to address the TET. Then, I apply it to the educational uses of ChatGPT as the most notable example of LLM, although my arguments can be extended to other generative AI systems. To do so, in Sect. 1.1, I present Pritchard’s framework of cognitive character and virtue epistemology applied in education, to which I am committed in this treatment. In Sects. 2 and 3, I respectively illustrate Pritchard’s (2014) solution to the TET, and I highlight the general limitations of his proposal. Thus, in Sect. 4.1 I characterize ChatGPT as a computational cognitive artifact using Fasoli’s (2017, 2018) taxonomy of cognitive artifacts. In Sect. 4.2, I introduce my proposal, which combines Pritchard’s account of virtue epistemology with Fasoli’s (2017, 2018) taxonomy of cognitive artifacts to address the TET. Finally, in Sect. 5.1, I present some epistemically virtuous uses of ChatGPT in educational contexts. To conclude, I argue in favor of a multidisciplinary approach for analyzing educational activities involving AI technologies such as ChatGPT. (shrink)

The relationship between a human being and an AI system has to be considered as a collaborative process between two agents during the performance of an activity. When there is a collaboration between two people, a fundamental characteristic of that collaboration is that there is co-supervision, with each agent supervising the actions of the other. Such supervision ensures that the activity achieves its objectives, but it also means that responsibility for the consequences of the activity is shared. If there is (...) no co-supervision, neither collaborator can be held co-responsible for the actions of the other. When the collaboration is between a person and an AI system, co-supervision is also necessary to ensure that the objectives of the activity are achieved, but this also means that there is co-responsibility for the consequences of the activities. Therefore, if each agent's responsibility for the consequences of the activity depends on the effectiveness and efficiency of the supervision that that agent performs over the other agent's actions, it will be necessary to take into account the way in which that supervision is carried out and the factors on which it depends. In the case of the human supervision of the actions of an AI system, there is a wealth of psychological research that can help us to establish cognitive and non-cognitive boundaries and their relationship to the responsibility of humans collaborating with AI systems. There is also psychological research on how an external observer supervises and evaluates human actions. This research can be used to programme AI systems in such a way that the boundaries of responsibility for AI systems can be established. In this article, we will describe some examples of how such research on the task of supervising the actions of another agent can be used to establish lines of shared responsibility between a human being and an AI system. The article will conclude by proposing that we should develop a methodology for assessing responsibility based on the results of the collaboration between a human being and an AI agent during the performance of one common activity. (shrink)

What is the ethical impact of artificial intelligence assistants on human lives, and specifically how much do they threaten our individual autonomy? Recently, as part of forming an ethical framework for thinking about the impact of AI assistants on our lives, John Danaher claims that if the external automaticity generated by the use of AI assistants threatens our autonomy and is therefore ethically problematic, then the internal automaticity we already live with should be viewed in the same way. He takes (...) advantage of this paradox of internal automaticity to downplay the threats of external automaticity to our autonomy. We respond in this paper by challenging the legitimacy of the paradox. While Danaher assumes that internal and external automaticity are roughly equivalent, we argue that there are reasons why we should accept a large degree of internal automaticity, that it is actually essential to our sense of autonomy, and as such it is ethically good; however, the same does not go for external automaticity. Therefore, the similarity between the two is not as powerful as the paradox presumes. In conclusion, we make practical recommendations for how to better manage the integration of AI assistants into society. (shrink)