Jarek Gryz

Sztuczna inteligencja pojawiła się jako dziedzina badawcza ponad 60 lat temu. Po spektakularnych sukcesach na początku jej istnienia oczekiwano pojawienia się maszyn myślących w ciągu kilku lat. Prognoza ta zupełnie się nie sprawdziła. Nie dość, że maszyny myślącej dotąd nie zbudowano, to nie ma zgodności wśród naukowców czym taka maszyna miałaby się charakteryzować ani nawet czy warto ją w ogóle budować. W artykule tym postaramy się prześledzić dyskusję metodologiczną towarzyszącą sztucznej inteligencji od początku jej istnienia i określić relację między sztuczną inteligencją a kognitywistyką.

It has been noticed by several authors that the colloquial understanding of anonymity as mere unknown-ness is insufficient. This common-sense notion of anonymity does not recognize the role of the goal for which the anonymity is sought. Starting with the distinction between the intentional and unintentional anonymity (which are usually taken to be the same) and the general concept of the non-coordinatability of traits, we offer a logical analysis of anonymity and identification (understood as de-anonymization). In our enquiry, we focus on the intentional aspect of anonymity and develop a metaphor of “anonymity game” between “perpetrator” and “detective”. Beginning from common-sense intuitions, we provide a formalized, critical notion of anonymity.

Many attempts to define privacy have been made over the last century. Early definitions and theories of privacy had little to do with the concept of information and, when they did, only in an informal sense. With the advent of information technology, the question of a precise and universally acceptable definition of privacy in this new domain became an urgent issue as legal and business problems regarding privacy started to accrue. In this paper, I propose a definition of informational privacy that is simple, yet strongly tied with the concepts of information and property. Privacy thus defined is similar to intellectual property and should receive commensurate legal protection.

There are two fundamental classes of terms traditionally distinguished within moral vocabulary: the deontic and the aretaic. The terms from the first set serve in the prescriptive function of a moral code. The second class contains terms used for a moral evaluation of an action. The problem of the relationship between the aretaic and the deontic has not been discussed often by philosophers. It is, however, a very important and interesting issue: any normative ethical theory which takes as basic one set of these concepts should justify such choice and establish, at least implicitly, the logical relation with the other set. This paper is organized around the criticism of Stocker’s ‘sameness thesis’ (Stocker 1973 ): the claim that ‘good’ or ‘right’ mean the same thing. It is first presented in Stocker’s own formulation and criticized as implausible in that form. Some friendly modifications to his idea are suggested and then further discussed with the skeptical conclusion: no matter how close we bring deontic and aretaic notions, the gap between them will remain and any attempt to define or even explain one set of terms in another will leave something behind

This paper is an attempt to reject the classical interpretation of Stoic ethics as virtue ethics. The typical assumptions of this interpretation, that virtue is the supreme good and that happiness can be reduced to virtue, are questioned. We first lay out the conceptual framework of Stoic philosophy and present an outline of their reduction of happiness to virtue. The main part of the paper provides an argument for reinterpretation of virtue as rationality. In the last part of the paper – more speculative – we argue against the possibility of reduction of happiness to virtue. The main point of the argument is the conceptual incompatibility of the two notions.

The field of Artificial Intelligence has been around for over 60 years now. Soon after its inception, the founding fathers predicted that within a few years an intelligent machine would be built. That prediction failed miserably. Not only hasn’t an intelligent machine been built, but we are not much closer to building one than we were some 50 years ago. Many reasons have been given for this failure, but one theme has been dominant since its advent in 1969: The Frame Problem. What looked initially like an innocuous problem in logic, turned out to be a much broader and harder problem of holism and relevance in commonsense reasoning. Despite an enormous literature on the topic, there is still disagreement not only on whether the problem has been solved, but even what exactly the problem is. In this paper we provide a formal description of the initial problem, the early attempts at a solution, and its ramification both in AI as well as philosophy.

Autonomous agents (robots) are no longer a subject of science fiction novels. Self-driving cars, for example, may be on our roads within a few years. These machines will necessarily interact with the humans and in these interactions must take into account moral outcome of their actions. Yet we are nowhere near designing a machine capable of autonomous moral reasoning. In some sense, this is understandable as commonsense reasoning turns out to be very hard to formalize. In this paper, we identify several features of commonsense reasoning that are specific to the domain of morality. We show that its peculiarities, such as, moral conflicts or priorities among norms, give rise to serious challenges for any logical formalism representing moral reasoning. We then present a variation of default logic adapted from [5] and show how it addresses the problems we identified.