Barnaby Crook

An emerging field operating at the intersection of artificial intelligence, materials science, physical chemistry, and nanotechnology targets the creation of intelligent matter. However, despite demonstration of a range of interesting behaviours in molecular systems and soft materials, the goal of producing truly intelligent matter remains elusive. To aid the research effort, Kaspar and colleagues have elaborated a theoretical framework which purports to guide and evaluate progress towards the goal. In this paper, I address foundational conceptual issues with this intelligent matter framework. In particular, I argue that the absence of a normative criterion by which to assess the behaviour of proto-intelligent material systems prevents the framework from adequately serving its guiding and evaluative functions. Without a clear specification of what kinds of behaviours count as intelligent in the first place, researchers are unlikely to develop material systems that exhibit them. I propose to augment the IMF with a normative criterion requiring that purportedly intelligent systems implement concrete behaviours which contribute towards higher-order goals in virtue of the coordinated activity of their functional elements.

Modern AI systems based on deep learning are neither traditional tools nor full-blown agents. Rather, they are characterised by idiosyncratic agential profiles, i.e., combinations of agency-relevant properties. Modern AI systems lack superficial features which enable people to recognise agents but possess sophisticated information processing capabilities which can undermine human goals. I argue that systems fitting this description, when they are adversarial with respect to human users, pose particular risks to those users. To explicate my argument, I provide conditions under which agential profiles are explanatorily relevant to harms caused. I then contend that the role of recommender systems in producing harmful outcomes like digital addiction satisfies these conditions.

The data-driven approach to psychiatric science leverages large volumes of patient data to construct machine learning models with the goal of optimizing clinical decision making. Advocates claim that this methodology is well-placed to deliver transformative improvements to psychiatric science. I argue that talk of a data-driven revolution in psychiatry is premature. Transformative improvements, cashed out in terms of better patient outcomes, cannot be achieved without addressing patient understanding. That is, how patients understand their own mental illnesses. I conceptualize understanding as the possession of adaptive mental constructs through which experience is mediated. I suggest that this notion of understanding serves as a bottleneck which any prospective approach to psychiatry must address to be efficacious. Subsequently I argue that, though the data-driven approach is undoubtedly powerful, it does not have a straightforward means of unblocking the bottleneck of understanding. I suggest that the data-driven approach must be supplemented with significant theoretical progress if it is to transform psychiatry.

Recent work in explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) attempts to render opaque AI systems understandable through a divide-and-conquer strategy. However, this fails to illuminate how trained AI systems work as a whole. Precisely this kind of functional understanding is needed, though, to satisfy important societal desiderata such as safety. To remedy this situation, we argue, AI researchers should seek mechanistic interpretability, viz. apply coordinated discovery strategies familiar from the life sciences to uncover the functional organisation of complex AI systems. Additionally, theorists should accommodate for the unique costs and benefits of such strategies in their portrayals of XAI research.

Modern computer systems are ubiquitous in contemporary life yet many of them remain opaque. This poses significant challenges in domains where desiderata such as fairness or accountability are crucial. We suggest that the best strategy for achieving system transparency varies depending on the specific source of opacity prevalent in a given context. Synthesizing and extending existing discussions, we propose a taxonomy consisting of eight sources of opacity that fall into three main categories: architectural, analytical, and socio-technical. For each source, we provide initial suggestions as to how to address the resulting opacity in practice. The taxonomy provides a starting point for requirements engineers and other practitioners to understand contextually prevalent sources of opacity, and to select or develop appropriate strategies for overcoming them.

A central goal of research in explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) is to facilitate human understanding. However, understanding is an elusive concept that is difficult to target. In this paper, we argue that a useful way to conceptualize understanding within the realm of XAI is via certain human abilities. We present four criteria for a useful conceptualization of understanding in XAI and show that these are fulfilled by an abilities-based approach: First, thinking about understanding in terms of specific abilities is motivated by research from numerous disciplines involved in XAI. Second, an abilities-based approach is highly versatile and can capture different forms of understanding important in XAI application contexts. Third, abilities can be operationalized for empirical studies. Fourth, abilities can be used to clarify the link between explainability, understanding, and societal desiderata concerning AI, like fairness and trustworthiness. Conceptualizing understanding as abilities can therefore support interdisciplinary collaboration among XAI researchers, provide practical benefit across diverse XAI application contexts, facilitate the development and evaluation of explainability approaches, and contribute to satisfying the societal desiderata of different stakeholders concerning AI systems.