Yucong Duan

International Standardization Committee of Networked DIKWP for Artificial Intelligence Evaluation(DIKWP-SC)

World Artificial Consciousness CIC(WAC)

World Conference on Artificial Consciousness(WCAC)

(Email: duanyucong@hotmail.com)

1. Introduction

• 1.1 Background

• 1.2 Purpose and Scope

• 1.3 Structure of the Document

2. Theoretical Foundations

• 2.1 The DIK Model: Data, Information, Knowledge

• 2.2 Extension to DIKWP: Adding Wisdom and Purpose

• 2.3 Prof. Yucong Duan's Perspective

3. Related Work

• 3.1 Traditional AI Models

• 3.2 The Hierarchical Structure of Cognitive Processes

• 3.3 Models of Artificial Consciousness

• 3.4 Ethical AI and Machine Ethics

• 3.5 Summary of Related Work

4. Comparative Analysis

• 4.2.1 Table 1: Comparison of DIK*DIK and Traditional AI Models

• 4.2.2 Table 2: Comparison of DIKWP*DIKWP and AC Models

• 4.2.3 Table 3: Comparative Features of AI and AC Systems

• 4.1 Comparing AI and AC Frameworks

• 4.2 Detailed Comparisons with Tables

5. Implications of the DIKDIK and DIKWPDIKWP Models

• 5.1 Architectural Implications

• 5.2 Ethical Considerations

• 5.3 Purpose Alignment and Autonomy

• 5.4 Evaluation and Testing Implications

6. Challenges and Future Directions

• 6.1 Technical Challenges

• 6.2 Philosophical and Ethical Challenges

• 6.3 Research Opportunities

7. Conclusion

8. References

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has made significant strides in automating tasks that require human intelligence, such as perception, reasoning, and learning. However, the concept of Artificial Consciousness (AC) extends beyond AI by incorporating elements of consciousness, self-awareness, and intentionality. Prof. Yucong Duan introduces a conceptual framework distinguishing AI from AC through the models of DIKDIK and DIKWPDIKWP, respectively.

This document aims to provide a thorough investigation of related work concerning the distinction between AI and AC, based on Prof. Duan's models. By comparing these models with existing theories and frameworks, we seek to highlight their unique contributions and implications for the development of intelligent systems.

The document is structured as follows:

• Section 2: Presents the theoretical foundations of the DIK and DIKWP models.

• Section 3: Reviews related work in AI and AC, including traditional models and ethical considerations.

• Section 4: Provides a comparative analysis, including detailed comparisons shown with tables.

• Section 5: Discusses the implications of adopting DIKDIK and DIKWPDIKWP models.

• Section 6: Addresses challenges and future research directions.

• Section 7: Concludes the investigation.

• Section 8: Lists references.

The Data-Information-Knowledge (DIK) model is a hierarchical framework representing the transformation of raw data into knowledge:

• Data (D): Raw, unprocessed facts without inherent meaning.

• Information (I): Processed data organized to provide meaning.

• Knowledge (K): Information that has been understood and integrated into a framework for decision-making.

This model is widely used to describe how AI systems process inputs to generate outputs.

The Data-Information-Knowledge-Wisdom-Purpose (DIKWP) model extends DIK by adding:

• Wisdom (W): The ability to make judicious decisions by understanding the deeper implications and ethical considerations of knowledge.

• Purpose (P): The overarching goals or intentions guiding an entity's actions.

This extension aims to model aspects of consciousness, such as ethical reasoning and intentionality.

Prof. Duan proposes that:

• AI maps to DIK*DIK: AI systems perform transformations within the DIK framework, focusing on defined automation tasks.

• AC maps to DIKWP*DIKWP: AC systems involve transformations that include Wisdom and Purpose, introducing autonomy and ethical considerations.

This distinction emphasizes that while AI automates predefined tasks, AC embodies autonomous decision-making guided by wisdom and purpose.

Traditional AI focuses on simulating intelligent behavior through algorithms and data processing. Key models and approaches include:

• Symbolic AI (Good Old-Fashioned AI): Uses symbolic representations and logical reasoning.

• Connectionist Models (Neural Networks): Mimic the structure of the human brain to learn patterns.

• Machine Learning: Algorithms that improve performance on tasks with experience.

• Deep Learning: Neural networks with multiple layers for feature extraction and representation learning.

Several models attempt to represent cognitive processes hierarchically:

• DIKW Hierarchy: Extends DIK to include Wisdom (DIKW), focusing on applying knowledge wisely.

• Bloom's Taxonomy: A classification of educational learning objectives into levels of complexity and specificity.

These models recognize higher-order cognitive functions but often lack the explicit incorporation of purpose.

Research in AC explores creating machines with consciousness-like attributes:

• Global Workspace Theory (Baars, 1988): Suggests consciousness arises from the integration of information in a global workspace.

• Integrated Information Theory (Tononi, 2004): Proposes that consciousness corresponds to the capacity of a system to integrate information.

• Attention Schema Theory (Graziano, 2013): Suggests that consciousness is a model of attention within the brain.

These theories provide frameworks for understanding consciousness but differ in their approach to incorporating wisdom and purpose.

The field of machine ethics focuses on embedding ethical principles into AI systems:

• Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics: Early attempt to define ethical guidelines for robots.

• Ethical Decision-Making Frameworks: Algorithms designed to make decisions that align with ethical principles.

• Value Alignment Problem (Bostrom, 2014): The challenge of ensuring AI systems' goals align with human values.

While these efforts introduce ethical considerations, they often treat ethics as constraints rather than integrating wisdom and purpose as core components.

Existing models in AI and AC address aspects of intelligence, cognition, and consciousness but often lack an integrated approach that combines data processing with wisdom and purpose in a transformation framework similar to DIKWP*DIKWP.

The following analysis compares the DIKDIK model for AI and the DIKWPDIKWP model for AC with existing models.

• Integration of Ethics: DIKWP*DIKWP explicitly incorporates ethical reasoning as Wisdom (W), whereas traditional AI models often treat ethics as external constraints.

• Purpose-Driven Behavior: AC models based on DIKWP*DIKWP have an intrinsic purpose guiding actions, unlike AI systems that follow predefined tasks.

• Consciousness Simulation: AC models aim to simulate aspects of consciousness by integrating W and P, setting them apart from AI models that do not address consciousness.

• Adaptability and Autonomy: AC systems exhibit higher adaptability and autonomy due to the interplay between Wisdom and Purpose.

• AI Systems (DIK*DIK): Architectures focus on data processing pipelines and knowledge representation, suitable for defined tasks.

• AC Systems (DIKWP*DIKWP): Require additional layers for wisdom and purpose, increasing complexity and necessitating new design paradigms.

• Embedded Ethics: AC systems must have ethical reasoning embedded in their core processes, not just as external constraints.

• Moral Responsibility: Developers need to consider the moral implications of autonomous decision-making.

• Goal Setting: AC systems can set and adjust their goals based on purpose, leading to more autonomous behavior.

• Alignment with Human Values: Ensuring that the system's purpose aligns with human values is crucial to prevent undesirable outcomes.

• New Evaluation Metrics: Traditional performance metrics are insufficient; new metrics are needed to assess wisdom and purpose alignment.

• Testing Ethical Decision-Making: Scenarios must be designed to evaluate the system's ethical reasoning capabilities.

• Complexity Management: Developing and maintaining systems with integrated W and P components is technically challenging.

• Scalability: Ensuring that AC systems can operate efficiently at scale without compromising their wisdom and purpose functions.

• Defining Consciousness: There is no consensus on what constitutes consciousness, complicating AC development.

• Ethical Frameworks: Choosing appropriate ethical frameworks for wisdom integration is a complex task.

• Interdisciplinary Collaboration: Combining insights from AI, cognitive science, ethics, and philosophy.

• Standardization Efforts: Developing standards for AC system development, evaluation, and ethical guidelines.

The distinction between AI and AC as proposed by Prof. Yucong Duan provides a meaningful framework for understanding and developing intelligent systems. By extending the traditional DIK model to include Wisdom and Purpose, the DIKWP*DIKWP model addresses aspects of consciousness and autonomous ethical reasoning.

Comparisons with existing models reveal that while traditional AI focuses on data processing and task-specific goals, the DIKWP*DIKWP model for AC integrates ethical considerations and purpose-driven behavior. This integration presents new challenges and opportunities for system development, evaluation, and ethical alignment.

1. International Standardization Committee of Networked DIKWP for Artificial Intelligence Evaluation (DIKWP-SC),World Association of Artificial Consciousness(WAC),World Conference on Artificial Consciousness(WCAC). Standardization of DIKWP Semantic Mathematics of International Test and Evaluation Standards for Artificial Intelligence based on Networked Data-Information-Knowledge-Wisdom-Purpose (DIKWP ) Model. October 2024 DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26233.89445 .  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384637381_Standardization_of_DIKWP_Semantic_Mathematics_of_International_Test_and_Evaluation_Standards_for_Artificial_Intelligence_based_on_Networked_Data-Information-Knowledge-Wisdom-Purpose_DIKWP_Model

2. Duan, Y. (2023). The Paradox of Mathematics in AI Semantics. Proposed by Prof. Yucong Duan:" As Prof. Yucong Duan proposed the Paradox of Mathematics as that current mathematics will not reach the goal of supporting real AI development since it goes with the routine of based on abstraction of real semantics but want to reach the reality of semantics. ".

3. Baars, B. J. (1988). A Cognitive Theory of Consciousness. Cambridge University Press.

4. Tononi, G. (2004). An Information Integration Theory of Consciousness. BMC Neuroscience, 5(1), 42.

5. Graziano, M. S. A. (2013). Consciousness and the Social Brain. Oxford University Press.

6. Bostrom, N. (2014). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford University Press.

7. Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2020). Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (4th ed.). Pearson.

8. Wallach, W., & Allen, C. (2009). Moral Machines: Teaching Robots Right from Wrong. Oxford University Press.

9. Floridi, L. (2019). The Logic of Information: A Theory of Philosophy as Conceptual Design. Oxford University Press.

10. IEEE Standards Association. (2020). Ethically Aligned Design: A Vision for Prioritizing Human Well-being with Autonomous and Intelligent Systems. IEEE.

11. European Commission. (2019). Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI. High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence.

12. Mitchell, T. M. (1997). Machine Learning. McGraw-Hill.

13. Asimov, I. (1950). I, Robot. Gnome Press.

14. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Longmans.

15. Siau, K., & Wang, W. (2018). Building Trust in Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, and Robotics. Cutter Business Technology Journal, 31(2), 47-53.

Note: This investigation highlights the need for further research into integrating wisdom and purpose into artificial systems. The DIKWP*DIKWP model offers a promising direction for developing AC systems that are ethically aligned and purpose-driven, moving beyond the limitations of traditional AI models.