Kiverstein Julian, Kirchhoff Michael D, Froese Tom
Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Amsterdam Brain and Cognition, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Front Neurorobot. 2022 Jun 23;16:844773. doi: 10.3389/fnbot.2022.844773. eCollection 2022.
Biological agents can act in ways that express a sensitivity to context-dependent relevance. So far it has proven difficult to engineer this capacity for context-dependent sensitivity to relevance in artificial agents. We give this problem the label the "problem of meaning". The problem of meaning could be circumvented if artificial intelligence researchers were to design agents based on the assumption of the continuity of life and mind. In this paper, we focus on the proposal made by enactive cognitive scientists to design artificial agents that possess sensorimotor autonomy-stable, self-sustaining patterns of sensorimotor interaction that can ground values, norms and goals necessary for encountering a meaningful environment. More specifically, we consider whether the Free Energy Principle (FEP) can provide formal tools for modeling sensorimotor autonomy. There is currently no consensus on how to understand the relationship between enactive cognitive science and the FEP. However, a number of recent papers have argued that the two frameworks are fundamentally incompatible. Some argue that biological systems exhibit historical path-dependent learning that is absent from systems that minimize free energy. Others have argued that a free energy minimizing system would fail to satisfy a key condition for sensorimotor agency referred to as "interactional asymmetry". These critics question the claim we defend in this paper that the FEP can be used to formally model autonomy and adaptivity. We will argue it is too soon to conclude that the two frameworks are incompatible. There are undeniable conceptual differences between the two frameworks but in our view each has something important and necessary to offer. The FEP needs enactive cognitive science for the solution it provides to the problem of meaning. Enactive cognitive science needs the FEP to formally model the properties it argues to be constitutive of agency. Our conclusion will be that active inference models based on the FEP provides a way by which scientists can think about how to address the problems of engineering autonomy and adaptivity in artificial agents in formal terms. In the end engaging more closely with this formalism and its further developments will benefit those working within the enactive framework.
生物制剂的作用方式可能表现出对情境相关相关性的敏感性。到目前为止,事实证明,在人工主体中设计这种对情境相关敏感性的能力很困难。我们将这个问题称为“意义问题”。如果人工智能研究人员基于生命和心智连续性的假设来设计主体,那么意义问题就可以得到规避。在本文中,我们关注生成认知科学家提出的建议,即设计具有感觉运动自主性的人工主体——感觉运动交互的稳定、自我维持模式,这些模式可以为遇到有意义的环境所需的价值观、规范和目标奠定基础。更具体地说,我们考虑自由能原理(FEP)是否可以提供用于对感觉运动自主性进行建模的形式工具。目前对于如何理解生成认知科学与自由能原理之间的关系尚无共识。然而,最近的一些论文认为这两个框架根本不相容。一些人认为生物系统表现出历史路径依赖学习,而最小化自由能的系统则没有这种学习。另一些人则认为,自由能最小化系统将无法满足感觉运动能动性的一个关键条件,即“交互不对称性”。这些批评者质疑我们在本文中所捍卫的观点,即自由能原理可用于对自主性和适应性进行形式建模。我们将论证,现在就得出这两个框架不相容的结论还为时过早。这两个框架之间存在不可否认的概念差异,但在我们看来,每个框架都有重要且必要的贡献。自由能原理需要生成认知科学来解决它所提供的意义问题。生成认知科学需要自由能原理来对其认为是能动性构成要素的属性进行形式建模。我们的结论将是,基于自由能原理的主动推理模型为科学家提供了一种方式,使他们能够从形式角度思考如何解决人工主体中的自主性和适应性工程问题。最后,更紧密地参与这种形式主义及其进一步发展将使在生成框架内工作的人受益。