The Development of In-Group Favoritism: Between Social Reality and Group Identity

This study examined how social reality restricts children’s tendency for in-group favoritism in group evaluations. Children were faced with social reality considerations and with group identity concerns. Using short stories, in this experimental study, conducted among 3 age groups (6-, 8-, and 10-year-olds), the authors examined the trait attribution effects of reality constraints on eye-color differences and national group differences. The results show that the trait attributions of all age groups were restricted by the acceptance of socially defined reality. In addition, when the information about reality was not considered accurate, only the youngest children showed positive in-group favoritism. It is argued that these findings are useful in trying to reconcile some of the divergent and contrasting findings in the developmental literature on children’s intergroup perceptions and evaluations.

Learning, Social Intelligence and the Turing Test - why an "out-of-the-box" Turing Machine will not pass the Turing Test

The Turing Test (TT) checks for human intelligence, rather than any putative general intelligence. It involves repeated interaction requiring learning in the form of adaption to the human conversation partner. It is a macro-level post-hoc test in contrast to the definition of a Turing Machine (TM), which is a prior micro-level definition. This raises the question of whether learning is just another computational process, i.e. can be implemented as a TM. Here we argue that learning or adaption is fundamentally different from computation, though it does involve processes that can be seen as computations. To illustrate this difference we compare (a) designing a TM and (b) learning a TM, defining them for the purpose of the argument. We show that there is a well-defined sequence of problems which are not effectively designable but are learnable, in the form of the bounded halting problem. Some characteristics of human intelligence are reviewed including it's: interactive nature, learning abilities, imitative tendencies, linguistic ability and context-dependency. A story that explains some of these is the Social Intelligence Hypothesis. If this is broadly correct, this points to the necessity of a considerable period of acculturation (social learning in context) if an artificial intelligence is to pass the TT. Whilst it is always possible to 'compile' the results of learning into a TM, this would not be a designed TM and would not be able to continually adapt (pass future TTs). We conclude three things, namely that: a purely "designed" TM will never pass the TT; that there is no such thing as a general intelligence since it necessary involves learning; and that learning/adaption and computation should be clearly distinguished.Comment: 10 pages, invited talk at Turing Centenary Conference CiE 2012, special session on "The Turing Test and Thinking Machines

Social Machines

The term ‘social machine’ has recently been coined to refer to Web-based systems that support a variety of socially-relevant processes. Such systems (e.g., Wikipedia, Galaxy Zoo, Facebook, and reCAPTCHA) are progressively altering the way a broad array of social activities are performed, ranging from the way we communicate and transmit knowledge, establish romantic partnerships, generate ideas, produce goods and maintain friendships. They are also poised to deliver new kinds of intelligent processing capability by virtue of their ability to integrate the complementary contributions of both the human social environment and a global nexus of distributed computational resources. This chapter provides an overview of recent research into social machines. It examines what social machines are and discusses the kinds of social machines that currently exist. It also presents a range of issues that are the focus of current research attention within the Web Science community

Can Deep Blue™ make us happy? Reflections on human and artificial expertise

Sadly, progress in AI has confirmed earlier conclusions, reached using formal domains, about the strict limits of human information processing and has also shown that these limits are only partly remedied by intuition. More positively, AI offers mankind a unique avenue to circumvent its cognitive limits: (1) by acting as a prosthesis extending processing capacity and size of the knowledge base; (2) by offering tools for studying our own cognition; and (3) as a consequence of the previous item, by developing tools that increase the quality and quantity of our own thinking. These ideas are illustrated with chess expertise