Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence
Course Information
Instructor
- Jeff Maynes
- Piskor 109
- Office Hours: TBD
- Email: jmaynes@stlawu.edu
Course Materials
- Carter, Matt. Minds and Machines, 2007. Edinburgh University Press.
- All other readings will be made available on Canvas.
Course Description
Artificial Intelligence has been described as everything from the key to a prosperous human future, to an existential threat to our very survival. This course examines the nature of Artificial Intelligence, exploring what work in the field can tell us about the human mind. Topics include the analogy between the human mind and a computer, philosophical challenges to developing a genuinely artificial intelligence, and the nature and prospects of generative AI technologies (such as ChatGPT) to qualify as intelligent. The course will conclude with an examination of the ethical implications of AI technology, including on misinformation and when implemented in technologies such as self-driving cars.
Course Goals
- Students will know the central concepts and foundational positions in the philosophy of mind.
- Students will understand the nature of computation and how it relates to the (possible) nature of the mind.
- Students will be better able to critically read complex written work, and engage with it critically and analytically.
- Students will be better able to work with formal concepts of computation.
- Students will be better able to craft nuanced arguments on complex and technical subjects.
- Students will be better able to reflect critically on ethical issues surrounding the use of Artificial Intelligence.
- Students will be a more critical and reflective thinker about the role of artificial intelligence in our lives.
Assignments and Grading
| Participation | 10% |
| Homework | 40% |
| Research Paper | 30% |
| Presentation | 20% |
Participation
Participation includes your engagement with the course, both in and out of the classroom. You can demonstrate this engagement in a number of ways, including being prepared for class, asking questions and making contributions in class discussion, discussing questions with me outside of class, and actively working in group work. Having completed the readings before class is an essential element of participation.
The material in this course is not easy, and two essential components of participation are a willingness to make errors, and a compassion for others who make mistakes. This means you should be willing to share your ideas, even if you are not sure they are correct; it also means you should be considerate of how you respond to others.
Your class participation grade also includes completion of the stages of the research paper project (outlines, peer review, and draft).
Rubric
| Exemplary (4.0) | Good (3.0) | Adequate (2.0) | Poor (1.0) | |
| Readiness to Learn | Student is always in class, having done all assignments, has relevant materials, and comes prepared with questions and ideas. | Student is always in class, having done all of the assignments, and has all of the relevant materials. | Student misses class, and/or has not done the work, or come prepared to discuss the topics of the day. Student frequently misses class, and is regularly unprepared for the topics of the day. | |
| In-Class Contributions | Student makes frequent constructive and insightful contributions to class conversations and group work. | Student’s contributions are infrequent, but constructive and insightful. | Student makes frequent contributions which are not constructive, or rarely contributes. | Student’s contributions actively diminish the learning environment (e.g., are off topic or attack others). |
| Virtuous Participation | Student regularly follows the code of intellectual conduct, and corrects themselves when failing to do so. | Student regularly follows the code of conduct, but does not recognize or improve upon unvirtuous behavior. | Student often violates the code of intellectual conduct and does not make serious efforts to improve. | Student frequently violates the code of intellectual conduct without making serious efforts to improve. |
Code of Intellectual Conduct
- Fallibility Principle – I recognize that I might be wrong.
- Principle of Charity – I will put the views of others in the best possible light.
- Truth-Seeking Principle – I will seek truth, not victory.
- Principle of Clarity - I will be clear and precise in all of my claims.
- Burden of Proof Principle – If I make a claim, I am obligated to defend it.
- Response Principle – If a claim is successfully defended, I should believe it. If no claim is successfully defended, I should suspend judgment.
Homework
The core concepts on which the course is based build in a stepwise fashion towards understanding (and evaluating) the position that computers can think, and that artificial intelligence is possible. They are also a mix of philosophical, mathematical, and logical ideas, some of which you will likely be more comfortable with than others. However, without an understanding of each of these steps you will be left with only a superficial understanding of the claim that a computer can possess a mind.
As such, in the first half of the semester you will mostly be working on homework assignments tied to the course readings. You will be graded using a simple scale: Pass or No-Pass. However, earning a pass requires demonstration of mastery of the concept. If you do not pass a homework assignment, I will ask you to continue working on it and to re-submit it. Each homework can be resubmitted one time, and re-submissions are due within one week of getting it back from me.
Your grade will be based on the number of homework assignments you successfully pass, as detailed in the table below:
| Number Passed | Grade |
| 7 | 4.0 |
| 6 | 3.5 |
| 5 | 3.0 |
| 4 | 2.5 |
| 3 | 2 |
| 2 | 1 |
| 0-1 | 0 |
Research Paper
This paper is a formal philosophical research paper. As such, it should include three central components:
- An overview of the existing literature and/or review of the arguments of at least one other philosopher you are in dialogue with.
- A defense of your own view, drawing from relevant evidence in the philosophy of AI, philosophy of mind, computer science, and cognitive psychology.
- Consideration of possible counter-arguments to your view, along with your response to either refute the counter-arguments, or show how they are consistent with your view.
We are going to try something new for this paper. I am going to provide a list of possible topics, and poll you on your preferred topics. I will then organize research groups for each project. Your research group will have a few formal responsibilities:
- Putting together a shared research bank of sources on your topic area.
- Completing a peer review of the argument draft.
- The group presentation. Otherwise, your research groups are informal networks of fellow students with whom you can share research and drafts. You are each responsible for your own paper, and you can take your own paper in a different direction than the other members of your research group.
This paper must draw on outside research in the philosophy of artificial intelligence (more broadly, in the philosophy of mind), and may also draw on relevant work in related disciplines like computer science and cognitive psychology.
The paper should be approximately 10-12 pages long, double-spaced, and submitted in hard copy. It should be written in a formal tone. The due dates for the stages of this project are:
- Your group’s research bank should be completed by March 6th.
- An outline of your main arguments is due March 27th.
- The peer review of your group’s outlines are due April 3rd.
- A draft of the paper will be due April 17th, at the beginning of class.
- The final version is due May 6th, by 11:30 AM.
More details on the paper and each of the steps described above will be distributed in class.
Rubric
| Exemplary (4.0) | Good (3.0) | Adequate (2.0) | Poor (1.0) | |
| Understanding | The paper demonstrates a strong command of the discussed positions and ideas. | The paper demonstrates an understanding of the key ideas, but misses nuances. | The paper misunderstands one or more central positions or ideas. | The paper frequently misunderstands central positions or ideas. |
| Charity | The paper presents all views fairly, and in the best possible light. | The views are expressed fairly, but not always in their strongest form. | Views are misrepresented as being weaker than they really are. | Views are presented in clearly problematic ways inconsistent with the original texts. |
| Intellectual Creativity | The author frequently contributes his/her own ideas to the paper. | The author makes a novel contribution, but does not go far beyond his/her sources. | The author has a novel idea, but does not develop it with a supporting argument. | The author does not contribute any ideas of his or her own. |
| Soundness | The arguments presented in the paper are valid and based on true premises. | The paper’s arguments are thoughtfully constructed, though have minor errors. | The central arguments of the paper are clearly invalid or rely on unsupported claims. | The paper makes little effort to make sound arguments, and instead simply asserts key claims. |
| Support | The paper supports all of its claims with relevant evidence. | The paper provides some, but not sufficient, evidence for its claims. | The paper fails to support key contentions with evidence. | The paper makes little effort to provide supporting evidence. |
| Clear Communication | The paper explains its jargon, and is free from syntactical and typographical errors. | The paper is readable and largely free from errors, but needs additional proof-reading. | The paper has errors which inhibit the clarity of the author’s claims. The paper makes frequent errors that inhibit readability. | |
| Diligence | The paper draws on a range of sources, and makes use of important and relevant work. | The paper draws on a range of sources, and misses essential relevant work. | The paper draws on a limited number of sources and misses essential relevant work. | The author makes little effort to build off the relevant literature in the field. |
| Intellectual Humility | The author’s claims always match his or her evidence (not claiming more than his/her evidence shows). | The author occasionally makes claims that go beyond his/her evidence in subtle ways. | The author makes claims that go well beyond what his or her evidence actually shows. | The author makes claims that are not based upon supporting arguments. |
| Intellectual Honesty | The author notes the contributions of others, and always uses their sources fairly. | The author always uses their sources fairly, but does not always accurately note the contributions of others (e.g., not using a proper citation format). | The author uses sources unfairly (e.g., taking quotes well out of context), and has an inadequate bibliography. | N/A (Papers with more substantive problems with intellectual honesty will be considered plagiarized). |
Group Presentation
Your research group will be responsible for leading a 90 minute class session. Your goals for the class are:
- To provide your audience with any necessary background specific to your topic.
- To present a single argument from a source relevant to your group’s research interests.
- To lead a discussion and/or small group activities to explore that argument.
The emphasis for this presentation should be on leading a discussion, and not on lecturing. More details on this presentation and what it ought to look like, will be distributed in class and this page will be updated with a link to those instructions once available.
Rubric
| Exemplary (4.0) | Good (3.0) | Adequate (2.0) | Poor (1.0) | |
| Understanding | The group demonstrates an understanding of their material, and communicates it to the audience. | The group makes some significant mistakes, or does not communicate their understanding clearly. | The group often misunderstands their material, and does not communicate clearly. | The group is unprepared to explain their material, and makes regular, significant errors. |
| Speaking Skills | The group speaks with good volume, enthusiasm, and eye contact. | The group, at times, shows a lack of enthusiasm, poor eye contact, or has low volume. | The group frequently shows a lack of enthusiasm, poor eye contact, or has low volume. | The group consistently is hard to understand, and does not engage the audience |
| Organization | The presentation has a clear logical flow, so that the audience knows how it fits together. | The presentation has clear structure, but ideas are presented in a confusing order. | It is difficult to follow the logical flow of the presentation. | The presentation lacks structure and jumps from point to point. |
| Class Engagement | The group uses questions and activities that help us to understand key ideas. | The group gets the class actively engaged, but the activities are not connected to the broader themes. | The group attempts to get the class actively engaged, but is unclear in instructions and purpose. | The group does not attempt to engage the audience. |
Resources
I’ve written several guides to reading, researching, and writing Philosophy papers. I highly recommend you take a look, even if you are a major:
Course Policies
Respect for your classmates
We are a community, and every one of us is a part of it. Contributing to a healthy community is important, both because it affirms that each of us belongs and has a place here at St. Lawrence and in Philosophy courses, but also because we all learn better when we feel we can trust each other. We can trust each other to listen and think carefully about what we say. We can trust each other to value us as people, and to respect our dignity. We can trust each other to challenge us, but to do so with humility, recognizing that we all get things wrong.
As part of upholding this community, I expect that you will:
- Listen attentively while your classmates, or me, are talking.
- Arrive to class on time
- Show respect for your classmates, and avoid making disrespectful comments about their contributions, or showing clearly disrespectful body language in response to them.
- Be welcoming of your classmates ideas and contributions, and avoid making aggressive comments targeting your classmates or any group of people.
Late Assignment Policy
Here’s how I think about due dates: they are there for you. What does that mean? Well, one thing due dates help you do is structure your work, so that you are not hit with too many obligations at the same time. Another is that they help you learn how to work under a deadline, an experience you will have throughout your time at SLU and in your working life. Due dates also help make sure you are prepared for class. My policies on due dates are based on these goals.
Homework assignments are designed to prepare you for class, and so the first submission really needs to be complete in time for the assigned class. If the homework is late, I will still accept it, but you will lose the opportunity to revise it after the first submission.
For the paper, you may need flexiblity. It’s a big project and conflicts with other responsibilities may get in the way. Part of learning how to work under deadlines is planning ahead in a professionally responsible way to get more time. I am willing to grant extensions if you plan ahead and ask for one (at least 24 hours before the paper is due), but will refuse to grant an extension if you regularly ask for one (asking for more time in a professionally responsible way is perfectly reasonable, but developing a habit of needing it is not). When you ask for an extension, please specify how much extra time you will need.
Academic Honesty
A major commitment of the University is “to the intellectual development of the student” (St. Lawrence University Aims and Objectives) which can be achieved only by strict adherence to standards of honesty. At St. Lawrence, all members of the community have a responsibility to see that these standards are maintained. Consequently, St. Lawrence University students will not engage in acts of academic dishonesty as described in the Academic Honor Code, contained in the Student Handbook.
As part of this policy, you may not use ‘AI’ tools like ChatGPT, except:
- As part of an exploration of what LLMs can do and how they operate. That is, you can use it if describing its functioning is part of your work, and you are not representing the outputs of the LLM as your own work.
- As part of a classroom activity or demonstration where you are asked to use it for a specified purpose.
- Grammatical tools like Grammarly are fine, though you may not use LLMs to rewrite your own text. Doing so denies you an opportunity to improve your writing ability, risks distorting your original meaning, and makes your prose conform to common writing methods.
Given the theme of this class, we will spend a lot of time talking about the reasons for this policy. The simple version, however, is that (a) LLMs are systematically unreliable in ways that are not always easy to detect; (b) substitution of the work of LLMs for your own work subverts the very purpose of the class, as it denies you an opportunity to learn. (That, after all, is what all this hard work is for).
Accessibility
If you have a learning difference/disability or other health impairment and need accommodations please be sure to contact the Student Accessibility Services Office right away so they can help you get the accommodations you require. If you need to use any accommodations in this class, please meet with your instructor early and provide them with your Individualized Educational Accommodation Plan (IEAP) letter so you can have the best possible experience this semester.
Although not required, your instructor would like to know of any accommodations that are needed at least 10 days before a quiz or test. Please be proactive and set up an appointment to meet with someone from the Student Accessibility Services Office.
Color-Vision Deficiency: If you are Color-Vision Deficient, the Student Accessibility Services office has on loan glasses for students who are color vision deficient. Please contact the office to make an appointment.
For more specific information about setting up an appointment with Student Accessibility Services please see the listed options below: Telephone: 315.229.5537 Email: studentaccessibility@stlawu.edu For further information about Student Accessibility Services you can check the website at: https://www.stlawu.edu/student-accessibility-services
Calendar
| Date | Topic | Reading Assignments | Assignments Due |
| Unit One – Foundational Concepts in The Philosophy of Mind | |||
| W. 1.15 | Minds and Computers | ||
| M. 1.20 | Dualism | Carter, Ch. 1-2 | |
| W. 1.22 | Behaviorism | Carter, Ch. 3 | Homework #1 |
| M. 1.27 | Identity Theory | Carter, Ch. 5 | |
| W. 1.29 | Functionalism | Carter, Ch. 6 | Homework #2 |
Unit Two - Computability
| M. 2.3 | Formal Systems | Carter, Ch. 7 | |
| W. 2.5 | Computability | Carter, Ch. 8 | Homework #3 |
| M. 2.10 | Universal Machines Carter, Ch. 9 |
Unit Three – Computationalism and GOFAI
| W. 2.12 | Computationalism | Carter, Ch, 10 | |
| M. 2.17 | Computationalism, Continued | Fodor, “Methodological Solipsism…” | |
| W. 2.19 | Techniques Carter, Ch. 11-12 | Homework #4 | |
| M. 2.24 | Machine Reasoning and Language | Carter, Ch. 13-14 | |
| W. 2.26 | Human Reasoning and Language | Carter, Ch. 15-16 | Homework #5 |
| M. 3.3 | Meaning and Representation | Carter, Ch. 17-18 |
Unit Four – Deep Learning and LLMs
| W. 3.5 | Neural Networks | Carter, Ch. 19 | Homework #6, Research Bank Due |
| M. 3.10 | ChatGPT | Lee and Trott, “A Jargon-free…” | |
| W. 3.12 | LLMs and Understanding | Titus, “Does ChatGPT have semantic understanding?” | Homework #7 |
Spring Break – No Class on 3/17 or 3/19
Unit Five – The Ethics of AI
| M. 3.24 | Can AI be conscious? | Chalmers, “Could a Large Language Model be Conscious?” | |
| W. 3.26 | Can AI be creative? | Brainard, “The Curious Case of Uncurious Creation” | Argument Outline Due |
| M. 3.31 | Ethical AI Decision-Making | Geisslinger, et al. “Autonomous Driving Ethics” | |
| W. 4.2 | AI and Moral Responsibility | Goetze, “Mind the Gap” | Peer Review of Outlines Due |
| M. 4.7 | Deepfakes and Misinformation | Rini, “Deepfakes and the Epistemic Backstop” | |
| W. 4.9 | Algorithmic Bias | Fazelpour and Danks, “Algorithmic Bias” | |
| M. 4.14 | Epistemic Injustice and AI | Kay, et al. “Epistemic Injustice in Generative AI” | |
| W. 4.16 | Group Presentation | Research Paper Draft | |
| M. 4.21 | Group Presentation | ||
| W. 4.22 | Group Presentation | ||
| M. 4.28 | Group Presentation | ||
| W. 4.30 | Wrapping Up |