An official website of the United States government
We seek causes through science, religion, and in everyday life. We get excited when a big rock causes a big splash, and we get scared when it tumbles without a cause. But our causal cognition is usually biased. The 'why' is influenced by the 'who'. It is influenced by the 'self', and by 'others'. We share rituals, we watch action movies, and we influence each other to believe in the same causes. Human mind is packed with subjectivity because shared cognitive biases bring us together. But they also make us vulnerable. An artificial mind is deemed to be more objective than the human mind. After many years of science-fiction fantasies about even-minded androids, they are now sold as personal or expert assistants, as brand advocates, as policy or candidate supporters, as network influencers. Artificial agents have been stunningly successful in disseminating artificial causal beliefs among humans. As malicious artificial agents continue to manipulate human cognitive biases, and deceive human communities into ostensive but expansive causal illusions, the hope for defending us has been vested into developing benevolent artificial agents, tasked with preventing and mitigating cognitive distortions inflicted upon us by their malicious cousins. Can the distortions of human causal cognition be corrected on a more solid foundation of artificial causal cognition? In the present paper, we study a simple model of causal cognition, viewed as a quest for causal models. We show that, under very mild and hard to avoid assumptions, there are always self-confirming causal models, which perpetrate self-deception, and seem to preclude a royal road to objectivity.
more »
« less
Causality and deceit: Do androids watch action movies?
We seek causes through science, religion, and in everyday life. We get excited when a big rock causes a big splash, and we get scared when it tumbles without a cause. But our causal cognition is usually biased. The 'why' is influenced by the 'who'. It is influenced by the 'self', and by 'others'. We share rituals, we watch action movies, and we influence each other to believe in the same causes. Human mind is packed with subjectivity because shared cognitive biases bring us together. But they also make us vulnerable. An artificial mind is deemed to be more objective than the human mind. After many years of science-fiction fantasies about even-minded androids, they are now sold as personal or expert assistants, as brand advocates, as policy or candidate supporters, as network influencers. Artificial agents have been stunningly successful in disseminating artificial causal beliefs among humans. As malicious artificial agents continue to manipulate human cognitive biases, and deceive human communities into ostensive but expansive causal illusions, the hope for defending us has been vested into developing benevolent artificial agents, tasked with preventing and mitigating cognitive distortions inflicted upon us by their malicious cousins. Can the distortions of human causal cognition be corrected on a more solid foundation of artificial causal cognition? In the present paper, we study a simple model of causal cognition, viewed as a quest for causal models. We show that, under very mild and hard to avoid assumptions, there are always self-confirming causal models, which perpetrate self-deception, and seem to preclude a royal road to objectivity.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1662487
- PAR ID:
- 10203332
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Computer Research Repository
- Volume:
- abs/1910.04383
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract Reinforcement learning and working memory are two core processes of human cognition and are often considered cognitively, neuroscientifically, and algorithmically distinct. Here, we show that the brain networks that support them actually overlap significantly and that they are less distinct cognitive processes than often assumed. We review literature demonstrating the benefits of considering each process to explain properties of the other and highlight recent work investigating their more complex interactions. We discuss how future research in both computational and cognitive sciences can benefit from one another, suggesting that a key missing piece for artificial agents to learn to behave with more human-like efficiency is taking working memory's role in learning seriously. This review highlights the risks of neglecting the interplay between different processes when studying human behavior (in particular when considering individual differences). We emphasize the importance of investigating these dynamics to build a comprehensive understanding of human cognition.more » « less
-
Observations abound about the power of visual imagery in human intelligence, from how Nobel prize-winning physicists make their discoveries to how children understand bedtime stories. These observations raise an important question for cognitive science, which is, what are the computations taking place in someone’s mind when they use visual imagery? Answering this question is not easy and will require much continued research across the multiple disciplines of cognitive science. Here, we focus on a related and more circumscribed question from the perspective of artificial intelligence (AI): If you have an intelligent agent that uses visual imagery-based knowledge representations and reasoning operations, then what kinds of problem solving might be possible, and how would such problem solving work? We highlight recent progress in AI toward answering these questions in the domain of visuospatial reasoning, looking at a case study of how imagery-based artificial agents can solve visuospatial intelligence tests. In particular, we first examine several variations of imagery-based knowledge representations and problem-solving strategies that are sufficient for solving problems from the Raven’s Progressive Matrices intelligence test. We then look at how artificial agents, instead of being designed manually by AI researchers, might learn portions of their own knowledge and reasoning procedures from experience, including learning visuospatial domain knowledge, learning and generalizing problem-solving strategies, and learning the actual definition of the task in the first place.more » « less
-
Abstract Artificial intelligence has not achieved defining features of biological intelligence despite models boasting more parameters than neurons in the human brain. In this perspective article, we synthesize historical approaches to understanding intelligent systems and argue that methodological and epistemic biases in these fields can be resolved by shifting away from cognitivist brain-as-computer theories and recognizing that brains exist within large, interdependent living systems. Integrating the dynamical systems view of cognition with the massive distributed feedback of perceptual control theory highlights a theoretical gap in our understanding of nonreductive neural mechanisms. Cell assemblies—properly conceived as reentrant dynamical flows and not merely as identified groups of neurons—may fill that gap by providing a minimal supraneuronal level of organization that establishes a neurodynamical base layer for computation. By considering information streams from physical embodiment and situational embedding, we discuss this computational base layer in terms of conserved oscillatory and structural properties of cortical-hippocampal networks. Our synthesis of embodied cognition, based in dynamical systems and perceptual control, aims to bypass the neurosymbolic stalemates that have arisen in artificial intelligence, cognitive science, and computational neuroscience.more » « less
-
Understanding the relationship between cognition and programming outcomes is important: it can inform interventions that help novices become experts faster. Neuroimaging techniques can measure brain activity, but prior studies of programming report only correlations. We present the first causal neurological investigation of the cognition of programming by using Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS). TMS permits temporary and noninvasive disruption of specific brain regions. By disrupting brain regions and then measuring programming outcomes, we discover whether a true causal relationship exists. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first use of TMS to study software engineering. Where multiple previous studies reported correlations, we find no direct causal relationships between implicated brain regions and programming. Using a protocol that follows TMS best practices and mitigates for biases, we replicate psychology findings that TMS affects spatial tasks. We then find that neurostimulation can affect programming outcomes. Multi-level regression analysis shows that TMS stimulation of different regions significantly accounts for 2.2% of the variance in task completion time. Our results have implications for interventions in education and training as well as research into causal cognitive relationships.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- The DOI is not currently available.
