<p>Mental disorders, which are fundamentally undesirable phenomena, can be both environmentally and innately caused.  There are both neurological components as well as environmental components almost exclusively sourcing from childhood.</p>

<p>In the same way, a "thinking machine" can have the same undesirable problems.  I imagine the "neurological problems" would be tantamount to bugs in the original software and hardware malfunctions.  Much more common would be the environmental causes, similarly in the AI's "childhood".</p>

<p>Human childhood is a very impressionable time.  Love and proper care leads to healthy growth, proper perspectives of safety and danger, proper priorities leading to healthy adult human lives.  Abuse and neglect lead to psychological malformations such as unhealthy concepts of danger, of self, of the meaning of love and family, etc.</p>

<p>Similarly, AI "childhood" will be the beginning period of discovery and learning (which may happen in R&amp;D labs, rather than the real world, depending on the circumstances).  While it's difficult to say what might cause malformations, it's safe to assume that improper training of the AI, just like improper raising of a human child, will result in odd, unpredictable, and undesired behavior.</p>

<p>As a note, this is all technically true for AI less sophisticated than "thinking", but the simpler it is, the easier it is to properly train and prevent hardware and fundamental software errors.  For example, an AI that identifies pictures would show unpredictable and undesirable behavior if, for some reason, it was trained randomly (say, by using crowd-sourced training and being the victim of trolling).  A 'thinking' AI would likewise have undesirable results if it were "abused" or never taught the value of, say, life.  One, in that case, might easily end up with a "sociopathic" AI.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-05T05:05:17.767Z
Very interesting analysis. You mention 'bugs' in the programming and hardware problems and 'environmental' concerns ,and maybe bugs and viruses and malware from the internet; all helping to cause system problems in an A.I. 'childhood'. The thing is could a 'young' A.I. system have no bugs or malware or hardware problems ; in other words a stable set of system processes yet develope instability from STABLE programs and their usage. And if an A.I. system is really the ONLY 'thing' programming itself it could be unstable in terms of 'internal logic' and program itself badly.
user128932
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-06T08:02:40.950Z
There could easily be some fatal flaw in either the original coding, the hardware for the AI, or the original training.  The former two would be akin to a genetic predisposition for a mental disorder while the latter would be akin to a learned or acquired disorder.  But all are definitely possible.  Note that we're speaking of "thinking" AI, which is orders of magnitude more sophisticated than what we currently achieve.
Attackfarm
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-06T19:38:26.530Z
If an A.I system is 'set-up' so it can program itself and NEVER need any info. or 'programming' from outside itself or from programmers this would be a 'thinking' A.I. which would be many orders of magnitude more sophisticated. All this might require is'getting' the A.I. system to be able to program itself.( without ANY outside help)
user128932
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-06T19:46:16.697Z
If an A.I. system is 'designed' and running with no present flaws whatsoever , could it develope system instabilities just from how it manipulates its own processes.
user128932
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-07T07:04:05.320Z
The closest technology we have to a "thinking machine" is a neural network.  This is a tech that, while not needing explicit "programming", still needs training.  This is sourced from either data sets, environmental variables, or more intelligent agents (e.g. humans).  If these sources of training were flawed in some way, problems could easily develop.  This is similar to the "training" of human childhood being filled with unhealthy variables such as neglect and abuse, which result in undesired (but initially useful) mechanisms of thought, emotion, and behavior
Attackfarm
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-07T07:09:51.763Z
In short, yes.  A thinking machine that matches Turing's original concept (not the current chat-bot internet "test") could definitely develop numerous "disorders" due to the early development.  Later development would be more immune to adverse training, just as later adulthood is more immune to trauma than childhood in humans.  This could mean anything from an AI that's trained via the internet that's trolled by Internet trolls, to an AI that is abused by a corporation that fails to teach it a healthy world perspective to an AI that's "locked in a closet" for decades.
Attackfarm
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-08T06:04:19.767Z
Sorry to disagree , 'later' adulthood is not more immune to trauma or a 'drawn' out series of negative-impacting events than childhood in humans. So maybe later 'adulthood' in an A.I. system could develope instabilities not just from program and data 'abuse' or corruption ( for instance trying to use some corrupt data yet incorrectly interpreting it as 'sound'); maybe an A.I. system 'using' info.-misinterpretations or mis-management could 'distort it's own info. and progams by 'itself'.
user128932
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-08T08:02:18.177Z
Adulthood is undoubtedly and unquestioningly more resistant to trauma, abuse, and neglect.  That's really, really not in question in the field of psychology.  Neural networks are a bit different, but the underlying concept is the same.  Early training becomes more difficult to untrain later, as it has been reinforced multiple times (read: thousands).  Thus, single mistakes, errors, or mistraining is less effective later than it is early in the development.
Attackfarm
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-09T02:39:38.123Z
'Adulthood is undoubtedly more resistant to trauma'; what about all the talk of P.T.S.D. in adults. I only mention this because by analogy an 'adult A.I. system that HAS BEEN FUNCTIONING adequately could develope system instability not from some progrmming or processing defect 'learned' from its early developement but from some processing instabilities it developes in 'adulthood'. If a lot of processing mistakes or misinterpretations are 'allowed' to exist and effect further processing the system could 'build' a subsystem of 'self-organising' mis-information that is interpreted as correct.
user128932
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-09T17:06:16.677Z
PTSD obviously exists, but a child experiencing the same trauma will incur harsher effects, namely DID (Dissociative Identity Disorder) and other dissociative disorders.  Adults aren't completely immune, but more resistance.  As for AIs, yes, as I said, an "adult" AI is more resistance, but could still be mistrained.  However, regardings your last statements, if you're asking if an AI, without any input at all, could develop a disorder, I'd have to say no.  Psychological disorders don't develop from pure processing errors.  Caveat being an intelligence "locked in a closet" as it were
Attackfarm
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-10T04:10:53.523Z
How are adults more resistant? The fact MOST people don't want to talk about mental illness and MANY people stygmatize it  shows most adults are afraid of mental problems in that they feel susceptible somehow. It is probably true children are more susceptible to trauma than adults , but I wouldn't say adults are more resistant to trauma as if 'being' an adult gives them more 'protection' OR as if there is an objective way to 'measure' 'resistance' to trauma. I think Adults are more afraid of 'acting' 'crazy' than kids are. Why can't pure processing errors 'set-up' a functional disorder?
user128932
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-10T05:40:54.763Z
Adults are more resistant by nature of adulthood.  Children are very susceptible to their environment, both the positive and negative.  They can learn languages faster, and suffer graver effects of trauma.  It's just in the nature of development.  "Pure processing errors" would mean a fundamental neurological problem, or a bug in the AI software.  With perfectly functioning "software", there would be no processing errors, and there would be no formation of disorders purely from that.
Attackfarm
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-11T03:54:28.250Z
'With perfectly functioning software, there would be no processing errors', yet you are assuming the software is 'well written'. The software could have NO 'bugs in it but be 'poorly' written or 'adequately written' yet still 'functional' as software ; as such its usage could develope processing errors as it 'runs' ; or it could 'make' a new 'bug' while it is running. So if it is adequately written but functional software it could be 'perfectly' functioning ( relative to how its written) software that still develops processing errors.
user128932
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-11T04:33:59.540Z
That's not really how software works.  A software that was completely "bug-free" would function exactly as expected.  This would mean no "processing errors."  If a software meant to process, well, anything, had errors while processing it, which results in any undesirable or unpredicted behavior, it by definition has "bugs".  Expert systems can develop problems during training, but that's a problem with training, not a pure "processing error".
Attackfarm
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-11T04:49:00.267Z
Could a poorly written but functional software cause new processing errors within the system it is in? (even if the software is working 'properly' according to its specifications)  Note ; you say software that was completely bug-free would function exactly as expected ; this would mean no processing errors yet you are assuming again that the software is well written and so would not 'lead' to any processing errors. If the software was not well-written and functioned as 'intended' it may cause processing errors.
user128932
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-11T04:50:46.310Z
Anyone else interested in commenting ; if not I will be told I can't comment anymore except in a chatroom..
user128932
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-04T19:08:51.770Z
2014-10-04T19:19:05.150Z
2014-10-04T19:19:05.150Z
Attackfarm
<p>If an A.I. system ( 'housed' in a Robotic exterior) actually passed the Turing test and was therefore 'functionally similar to the human 'mind-brain' would it also have the potential for information processing instability analogous to 'mental' problems in the mind-brain. ( Where the instabilities are not just because of information or important-definitions mismanagement but are also from info.-processing mismanagement.) Could one A.I system test another with the Turing Test and regard the other as an 'unstable', human , if the responses were sufficiently 'unstable' sounding? Could an A.I. system pretend through the Turing Test to be 'stupid' to another A.I. system?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-03T13:07:36.407Z
@James sorry, that's my fault, he posted it as a comment before and I thought it sounded different enough for a new question. My bad. Apparently, him and I are still learning how to use this website.
Seanny123
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-04T09:11:19.143Z
@Seanny123 No harm, no foul.  You can incorporate any of the changes you want into the other question.
Chuck Sherrington
<cognitive-psychology><cognitive-modeling>
About the Turing test and a Robot's psychology
user128932
# About the Turing test and a Robot's psychology

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-10-03)

If an A.I. system ( 'housed' in a Robotic exterior) actually passed the Turing test and was therefore 'functionally similar to the human 'mind-brain' would it also have the potential for information processing instability analogous to 'mental' problems in the mind-brain. ( Where the instabilities are not just because of information or important-definitions mismanagement but are also from info.-processing mismanagement.) Could one A.I system test another with the Turing Test and regard the other as an 'unstable', human , if the responses were sufficiently 'unstable' sounding? Could an A.I. system pretend through the Turing Test to be 'stupid' to another A.I. system?

**Tags:** cognitive-psychology, cognitive-modeling

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: @James sorry, that's my fault, he posted it as a comment before and I thought it sounded different enough for a new question. My bad. Apparently, him and I are still learning how to use this website.  
> **username_2**: @username_1 No harm, no foul.  You can incorporate any of the changes you want into the other question.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2014-10-04. Score: 0 | Accepted answer

Mental disorders, which are fundamentally undesirable phenomena, can be both environmentally and innately caused. There are both neurological components as well as environmental components almost exclusively sourcing from childhood.

In the same way, a "thinking machine" can have the same undesirable problems. I imagine the "neurological problems" would be tantamount to bugs in the original software and hardware malfunctions. Much more common would be the environmental causes, similarly in the AI's "childhood".

Human childhood is a very impressionable time. Love and proper care leads to healthy growth, proper perspectives of safety and danger, proper priorities leading to healthy adult human lives. Abuse and neglect lead to psychological malformations such as unhealthy concepts of danger, of self, of the meaning of love and family, etc.

Similarly, AI "childhood" will be the beginning period of discovery and learning (which may happen in R&D labs, rather than the real world, depending on the circumstances). While it's difficult to say what might cause malformations, it's safe to assume that improper training of the AI, just like improper raising of a human child, will result in odd, unpredictable, and undesired behavior.

As a note, this is all technically true for AI less sophisticated than "thinking", but the simpler it is, the easier it is to properly train and prevent hardware and fundamental software errors. For example, an AI that identifies pictures would show unpredictable and undesirable behavior if, for some reason, it was trained randomly (say, by using crowd-sourced training and being the victim of trolling). A 'thinking' AI would likewise have undesirable results if it were "abused" or never taught the value of, say, life. One, in that case, might easily end up with a "sociopathic" AI.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Very interesting analysis. You mention 'bugs' in the programming and hardware problems and 'environmental' concerns ,and maybe bugs and viruses and malware from the internet; all helping to cause system problems in an A.I. 'childhood'. The thing is could a 'young' A.I. system have no bugs or malware or hardware problems ; in other words a stable set of system processes yet develope instability from STABLE programs and their usage. And if an A.I. system is really the ONLY 'thing' programming itself it could be unstable in terms of 'internal logic' and program itself badly.  
> **username_3**: There could easily be some fatal flaw in either the original coding, the hardware for the AI, or the original training.  The former two would be akin to a genetic predisposition for a mental disorder while the latter would be akin to a learned or acquired disorder.  But all are definitely possible.  Note that we're speaking of "thinking" AI, which is orders of magnitude more sophisticated than what we currently achieve.  
> **username_0**: If an A.I system is 'set-up' so it can program itself and NEVER need any info. or 'programming' from outside itself or from programmers this would be a 'thinking' A.I. which would be many orders of magnitude more sophisticated. All this might require is'getting' the A.I. system to be able to program itself.( without ANY outside help)  
> **username_0**: If an A.I. system is 'designed' and running with no present flaws whatsoever , could it develope system instabilities just from how it manipulates its own processes.  
> **username_3**: The closest technology we have to a "thinking machine" is a neural network.  This is a tech that, while not needing explicit "programming", still needs training.  This is sourced from either data sets, environmental variables, or more intelligent agents (e.g. humans).  If these sources of training were flawed in some way, problems could easily develop.  This is similar to the "training" of human childhood being filled with unhealthy variables such as neglect and abuse, which result in undesired (but initially useful) mechanisms of thought, emotion, and behavior  
> **username_3**: In short, yes.  A thinking machine that matches Turing's original concept (not the current chat-bot internet "test") could definitely develop numerous "disorders" due to the early development.  Later development would be more immune to adverse training, just as later adulthood is more immune to trauma than childhood in humans.  This could mean anything from an AI that's trained via the internet that's trolled by Internet trolls, to an AI that is abused by a corporation that fails to teach it a healthy world perspective to an AI that's "locked in a closet" for decades.  
> **username_0**: Sorry to disagree , 'later' adulthood is not more immune to trauma or a 'drawn' out series of negative-impacting events than childhood in humans. So maybe later 'adulthood' in an A.I. system could develope instabilities not just from program and data 'abuse' or corruption ( for instance trying to use some corrupt data yet incorrectly interpreting it as 'sound'); maybe an A.I. system 'using' info.-misinterpretations or mis-management could 'distort it's own info. and progams by 'itself'.  
> **username_3**: Adulthood is undoubtedly and unquestioningly more resistant to trauma, abuse, and neglect.  That's really, really not in question in the field of psychology.  Neural networks are a bit different, but the underlying concept is the same.  Early training becomes more difficult to untrain later, as it has been reinforced multiple times (read: thousands).  Thus, single mistakes, errors, or mistraining is less effective later than it is early in the development.  
> **username_0**: 'Adulthood is undoubtedly more resistant to trauma'; what about all the talk of P.T.S.D. in adults. I only mention this because by analogy an 'adult A.I. system that HAS BEEN FUNCTIONING adequately could develope system instability not from some progrmming or processing defect 'learned' from its early developement but from some processing instabilities it developes in 'adulthood'. If a lot of processing mistakes or misinterpretations are 'allowed' to exist and effect further processing the system could 'build' a subsystem of 'self-organising' mis-information that is interpreted as correct.  
> **username_3**: PTSD obviously exists, but a child experiencing the same trauma will incur harsher effects, namely DID (Dissociative Identity Disorder) and other dissociative disorders.  Adults aren't completely immune, but more resistance.  As for AIs, yes, as I said, an "adult" AI is more resistance, but could still be mistrained.  However, regardings your last statements, if you're asking if an AI, without any input at all, could develop a disorder, I'd have to say no.  Psychological disorders don't develop from pure processing errors.  Caveat being an intelligence "locked in a closet" as it were  
> **username_0**: How are adults more resistant? The fact MOST people don't want to talk about mental illness and MANY people stygmatize it  shows most adults are afraid of mental problems in that they feel susceptible somehow. It is probably true children are more susceptible to trauma than adults , but I wouldn't say adults are more resistant to trauma as if 'being' an adult gives them more 'protection' OR as if there is an objective way to 'measure' 'resistance' to trauma. I think Adults are more afraid of 'acting' 'crazy' than kids are. Why can't pure processing errors 'set-up' a functional disorder?  
> **username_3**: Adults are more resistant by nature of adulthood.  Children are very susceptible to their environment, both the positive and negative.  They can learn languages faster, and suffer graver effects of trauma.  It's just in the nature of development.  "Pure processing errors" would mean a fundamental neurological problem, or a bug in the AI software.  With perfectly functioning "software", there would be no processing errors, and there would be no formation of disorders purely from that.  
> **username_0**: 'With perfectly functioning software, there would be no processing errors', yet you are assuming the software is 'well written'. The software could have NO 'bugs in it but be 'poorly' written or 'adequately written' yet still 'functional' as software ; as such its usage could develope processing errors as it 'runs' ; or it could 'make' a new 'bug' while it is running. So if it is adequately written but functional software it could be 'perfectly' functioning ( relative to how its written) software that still develops processing errors.  
> **username_3**: That's not really how software works.  A software that was completely "bug-free" would function exactly as expected.  This would mean no "processing errors."  If a software meant to process, well, anything, had errors while processing it, which results in any undesirable or unpredicted behavior, it by definition has "bugs".  Expert systems can develop problems during training, but that's a problem with training, not a pure "processing error".  
> **username_0**: Could a poorly written but functional software cause new processing errors within the system it is in? (even if the software is working 'properly' according to its specifications)  Note ; you say software that was completely bug-free would function exactly as expected ; this would mean no processing errors yet you are assuming again that the software is well written and so would not 'lead' to any processing errors. If the software was not well-written and functioned as 'intended' it may cause processing errors.  
> **username_0**: Anyone else interested in commenting ; if not I will be told I can't comment anymore except in a chatroom..  

---

