Artificial Intelligence

One of the marks that differentiates a human from a machine is the human's ability to make
independent decisions based on environmental stimuli. Most computer programs that are
required to make any sort of a decision are currently pre-programmed with the lists of decisions
based on a number of conditions. However, if those conditions are not met in some way or are
altered, computers have no way of making decisions they were not programmed to make.
In the future, AI programs may be endowed with the ability to make new decisions unplanned for
by their creators. This would require the programs to be able to generate new payoff matrices
based on the observed stimuli and experience. A program that is able to do that would be capable
of learning and would, in a lot of ways, resemble the human decision-making process.
Philosophy
Philosophers are increasingly becoming interested in Game Theory because it provides a way of
elucidating the logical difficulty of philosophers such as Hobbes, Rousseau, Kant and other social
and political theorists.
Rationality and the pursuit of self-interest:
According to Bertrand Russell " 'Reason' has a perfectly clear and precise meaning. It signifies the
choice of the right means to an end that you wish to achieve". This is the interpretation of 'reason'
that most contemporary philosophers favor. However, many philosophers have pointed out
situations where the concept of rationality seems to break down. The situations are those who
strategic structures resemble that of the Prisoner's Dilemma.
An example of a multiple person Prisoner's Dilemma is as follows: Suppose that during a drought,
a person must decide whether he should act in his own self-interest and water the garden or
whether he should exercise restraint and conserve water. No matter what the other community
members do, a person is always better off watering his garden because this is the right means to
the end that he desires. The reasoning for this is that it is unnecessary for one person to exercise
restraint if the most other community members are restraining as well. Even if the rest of the
community doesn't exercise restraint, it is futile for just one person to do so since one person does
not have that big of an impact on the whole water supply.
The paradox is that if the entire community reasons this way, the water supply will dry up
completely but if each community member cooperates and exercises restraint (acts irrationally)
the water supply will be spared. Moral philosopher, Derek Parfit, believes that cooperation,
instead of being the irrational choice, can be a rational course of action. Parfit has proposed
several solutions to the Prisoner's dilemma so that cooperation becomes the reasonable choice.
One solution involves changing the entire structure of the game so that it is no longer a Prisoner's
Dilemma. To do this, the payoff functions of each player should be changed in order to make it
unprofitable for anyone to defect. In the case of the example given above, the payoff functions of
each individual would change if there were a fine for watering the garden during a drought. Such a
solution is considered a "political" solution and oftentimes these sorts of solutions cannot be
implemented.
Parfit argues that an even better solution would be to find ways to make people cooperate for
purely moral reasons. Parfit proposes that the way to achieve such a "moral" solution would be to
educate society about the Prisoner's Dilemma and it's most desirable, though irrational solution.
Kant's Categorical Imperative
Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative, which is intended to be a fundamental principle of
morality, states: "Act only on such a maxim through which you can at the same time will that it
should become a universal law." A maxim is just a personal rule of conduct while the universal law
is the conduct of all people. Kant's categorical imperative is continually debated among moral
philosophers because of its obscurity. Through the use of Game Theory, Kant's views can be
clarified. Kant's beliefs, when understood, offers a moral solution to the Prisoner's Dilemma.
One of Kant's examples of categorical imperative is illustrated in the following maxim: "Always
borrow money when in need and promise to pay it back without any intention of keeping the
promise." This maxim cannot possibly made into a universal law because it cannot be made
universal without creating a contradiction. That is, if this maxim was made universal, then
everyone would break promises and a promise would have no meaning and therefore promises
would cease to exist. Therefore, if this maxim were made universal, a logical contradiction would
follow.
In terms of Game Theory, Kant's categorical imperative can be restated as follows: "Choose only a
strategy which, if you could will it to be chosen by all the players, would yield a better outcome
from you point of view than any other". This statement, then, becomes a solution to the Prisoner's
Dilemma. That is, according to Kant's categorical imperative, only a cooperative choice can result.
This is because the personal choice of defecting, if made universal, is in contradiction to one's
personal interest (similar to the above example).
Hobbes's and Rousseau's Social Contract
Through the use of Game Theory, Hobbes' argument, later made popular by Jean-Jacques
Rousseau, for absolute monarchy can be reconstructed. Hobbes argued that, without some form
of external constraint on people's behaviors, anarchy would ensue. Cooperation among people
would be impossible since people act only to maximize individual welfare and not the welfare of
society as a whole. Granted, there will exists altruists (maybe even many of them) who constrain
their self-interests for the good of others. However, if even one self-interested person exists,
he/she will exploit the altruists' constraints, profiting from both his/her absence of constraint and
the altruist's unselfish behavior. As a result, Hobbes believes that it is psychologically unnatural for
altruists to exist. If just one narrowly self-interested person exists no altruist can survive unless
he/she becomes narrowly self-interested too. In such an environment, known as a State of Nature,
Hobbes argues that a person must always be suspicious that another will attack in order to
maximize his/her own self-interest. Therefore, in order for a person to maximize his best interest,
he must attack the other person before that other person can attack. Each such conflict between
two people in a state of nature has been termed as the "Hobbesian Dilemma." However, in the
field of Game Theory, the Hobbesian Dilemma has the same structure as a "Prisoner's Dilemma."
Hobbes believed that the "Hobbesian Dilemma" results in a State of Nature because morality is an
unstable enforcer of social cooperation. According to Hobbes, a stable enforcer can only exist if
not one person can deviate from the established rule by which the rest adhere to. Since
cooperation among people is biologically necessary, a stable enforcer must exist. Hobbes believes
that the best form of social enforcement is the existence of an all-powerful sovereign.
Resource Allocation and Networking
Computer network bandwidth can be viewed as a limited resource. The users on the network
compete for that resource. Their competition can be simulated using game theory models. No
centralized regulation of network usage is possible because of the diverse ownership of network
resources.
The problem is of ensuring the fair sharing of network resources. For example, ten Stanford
students on the same local network need access to the Internet. Each person, by using their
network connection, diminishes the quality of the connection for the other users. This particular
case is that of a volunteer's dilemma. That is, if one person abstains from using the network, the
other people will be better off, but that person will be worse off.
If a centralized system could be developed which would govern the use of the shared resources,
each person would get an assigned network usage time or bandwidth, thereby limiting each
person's usage of network resources to his or her fair share.
As of yet, however, such a system remains an impossibility, making the situation of sharing
network resources a competitive game between the users of the network and decreasing
everyone's utility.