8/8/2019 Philosophy Before Artificial Intelligence (English)

1/2

PHILOSOPHY BEFORE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Franois Laruelle

This modus operandi covers a tripartite program:

1) The inventory of philosophys traditional critiques of Artificial Intelligence (AI);2) The description of spontaneous philosophies that defend AI;3) The problematical extension of AI towards philosophy, the idea of an artificial

philosophy (A Phi).

What grounds this program that inscribes itself in the broader program of ascience of philosophy?

Instead of describing the codified practices of AI, one sought its intimate goal, itstlos, in order to extend to philosophy what is by itself only all too ambiguous [ce qui

nest encore en elle quen pointill]. This tlos seemed to be the latter, for AI

corresponds to a break [coupure] or a scientific revolution in the problem of a

science of thought, science in this case being experimental and rooted in technology.It is quite another matter, consequently, for formulas to simulate thought. This break

[coupure] has historical and mathematically precise conditions, particularly the

invention of logical methods, mathematics, and new technologies, which enable thereduction of thought to reasoning and that of reasoning to calculation.

This break specifies a hyperopia and a retrospection, an upstream and a

downstream [Cette coupure dfinit un amont et un aval].Upstream [En amont]: the old philosophical and fantastical project of a simulation

(or mirror image) of thought by machine. AI brings about a schism in this tradition

and seeks to situate the problem upon a controllable terrain that is both experimentaland scientific. The long-term ambition of AI is to found a science of general reasonor thought, which will extract from philosophy its last object. Hence the philosophersnecessity to compare himself to philosophy and to consider the future.

Downstream [En aval]: the project of AI can be radicalized and transformed oraugmented. We can regard it as the top of a cone the base of which would bephilosophy itself, no longer as cognition, which is only a limited concept of

philosophizing reason; the opening angle would undoubtedly be science, but liberated

from its reduction to logic and the sciences, which, as in cybernetics and theneurosciences, are combined with it. Under the nay [le non] ofA Phi,which acts as

our main thread, we try accordingly to plot the course that runs from AI, such as itexists, to a true Science of the most exhibited thought, that is, of philosophy: a science

of philosophy that is obviously no longer a philosophy of philosophy like we findrealized in the History of philosophy. Put another way, we are entirely wary of

unilaterally critiquing AI as philosophers (especially those of the continental variety)

often do. On the contrary, we treat it as a symptom to diagnose and remedyratherthan, for that matter, as a ready-made model to transferor dogmatically and

predispositionally [induement] extendto the philosophical Decision.

8/8/2019 Philosophy Before Artificial Intelligence (English)

2/2

The method: we twice juxtapose the auto-comprehension AI has of itself, which is

restrictive, with its essence:1. The exhibited essence of philosophical Decisions, which form its

presuppositions; the latter give rise to empiricist and rationalist auto-interpretations,

to philosophies which are oblivious to themselves and sometimes deny themselves as

such. We make the complete exigencies of philosophy appear inside and outside AI.2. The essence of science: against its auto-interpretations as science, where it is

thought in mixtures of empirico-rationalist philosophies and empirical sciences (logic,

the neurosciences, theory of information), we set a radical concept of science, one notconstructed on philosophical and epistemological foundations.

In sum we must ask: under what conditions can AI in its ultimate possibilities

become a rigorous science of Reason or Intelligence? Hence the inventory of theconditions of theoretical production of a science of philosophy from the limited model

of AI. The fundamental condition is that of restoring to science its autonomy in

relation to every epistemological retrieval, thus of most likely carrying out something

other than a break [coupure] or revolution. The development of AI suffersfrom overly limited and encysted theoretical foundations, as much from the scientific

as the philosophical. The passage to anA Phi is predicated first on overturning theinternal economy (the sciences, philosophies, and technologies) of AI.

This project distinguishes itself in this manner from the computing usages that

philosophy has developed in pursuit of textual ends, that is, in objects at once bothtoo general and too restricted in relation to the philosophical Decision. Instead of

confronting this Decision, it is left to the traditional foundations of information

technology (the speculative context of performance and machine-thoughtcompetition). We must first suspend thisposition of the problem (what purpose does

anA Phi serve, what assistance does it givei.e. a demonstration of arguments, the

creation of systemsto the philosophical Decision?). The only point of view that

authorizes this suspension and at the same time respects the autonomy of thephilosophical Decision, without imposing an empirical reduction upon it, is that of a

transcendental science, a science acquired through non-philosophical voices and thus

capable of being the science of philosophy; we have elsewhere posited the principles

and conditions of reality (Une biographie de lhomme ordinaire, Aubier-Montaigne,1985) with respect to this science.

The idea of anA Phi is a landmark on the path that leads to this science.

Original Translation Christopher Eby