Cambridge A Level Thinking Skills 9694 — 2012 Oct/Nov Paper 4 · Variant 3

This document consists of 7 printed pages and 1 blank page. IB12 11_9694_43/4RP © UCLES 2012 [Turn over *1947207703* UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL EXAMINATIONS General Certificate of Education Advanced Level THINKING SKILLS 9694/43 Paper 4 Applied Reasoning October/November 2012 1 hour 30 minutes Additional Materials: Answer Booklet/Paper READ THESE INSTRUCTIONS FIRST If you have been given an Answer Booklet, follow the instructions on the front cover of the booklet. Write your Centre number, candidate number and name on all the work you hand in. Write in dark blue or black pen. Do not use staples, paper clips, highlighters, glue or correction fluid. DO NOT WRITE ON ANY BARCODES. Answer all the questions. Start each question on a new answer sheet. At the end of the examination, fasten all your work securely together. The number of marks is given in brackets [ ] at the end of each question.

2 © UCLES 2012 9694/43/O/N/12 1 Study the passage below and answer the question that follows. In 2012, the Batran local government commissioned an analysis of the cost of providing services in the 8 Leisure Learning Centres in the region, in order to determine which one of them should be closed. The analysis revealed that, in 2012, the Centre at the historic town of Sinar was ranked highest in terms of total expenditure, second-highest in spending on resources, and highest in terms of number of staff employed per local population head. Furthermore, library records from June 2012 showed that Sinar had the lowest rate of book-borrowing per local population head of all of the 8 Centres. On the basis of this information, the local government decided that Sinar’s Leisure Learning Centre should be closed. Do you think that the local government’s decision to close Sinar’s Leisure Learning Centre can be justified on the basis of the statistics and information provided? Justify your answer. [5] Questions 2, 3 and 4 refer to Documents 1 to 5. 2 Briefly analyse the argument in Document 1: Electronic Brain, by identifying its main conclusion and main reasons, as well as any intermediate conclusions and counter-arguments. [6] 3 Critically evaluate Tan’s argument in Document 1: Electronic Brain, by identifying and explaining strengths, weaknesses, implicit assumptions and flaws. [9] 4 ‘A computer brain will be as good as, if not better than, a human brain.’ Construct a well-reasoned argument either for or against this statement, commenting critically on some or all of Documents 1 to 5, and introducing ideas of your own. [30]

3 © UCLES 2012 9694/43/O/N/12 [Turn over DOCUMENT 1 Electronic brain There is no great popular support as yet for building an artificial brain. Some think it is not possible, but such people must be driven above all by fear of being challenged by a greater intelligence. In actual fact, it would be worthwhile and beneficial for the human race to create artificial intelligence (AI). What we have developed in the area of computers is still not as interesting, powerful, and creative as the human brain. However, recent studies show computers are rapidly learning to match the capabilities of humans, be it language processing, visual processing, problem-solving, or whatever. And when, in a few years, we learn to combine these different technologies, we will have, for lack of a better term, a synthetic brain or AI. Moore’s law* predicts that by 2013 we might have developed a supercomputer far surpassing the human brain. By 2049, a $1000 computer will reach speeds surpassing the entire human species. So, really, there is nothing we can do to stop computers evolving into superstructures, except to stop making them. This is why it is inevitable that AI will come into being. Computers with artificial intelligence will have minds very similar to those of humans, with feelings, creativity and imagination. They will be able to recognise faces and voices, and react to stimuli. But the additional advantage is they are artificial, not human, so they will not have our negative human qualities such as greed, selfishness and competitiveness that make us walk all over our fellow humans and exploit them. A world where robots interact with human beings will be a more peaceful world. An AI computer brain will be para-human, as it will work on a similar frame of creative capabilities as human brains. I cannot think of any human feat which would be beyond the capabilities of AI. Because of capability for voice and face recognition, AI will be able to respond to human beings of all cultures, hence breaking through cultural barriers. Of course, human brains can run out of ideas, and so will the computer brain. It will have its limitations, being programmed to work within a certain set of parameters, beyond which it cannot know the way ahead. But is AI, with all its amazing capabilities, only as good as the human brain? There will be many ways in which a computer brain can outperform the human brain. Human strength is finite and can get fatigued and worn down physically, but a computer can perform functions, thousands of times, better and more quickly before it is (if ever) exhausted. No human can achieve such a feat. It has been pointed out that there are certain dimensions of human experience that may not be accessible to a computer brain, such as emotional experiences in social contexts. But this is more than compensated for by the consistency, efficiency, accuracy and methodical rigour with which an electronic brain can perform every task necessary to survive in the modern world. All things considered then, such a computer brain is far superior to the human brain and therefore will enhance human lives. Tan Kuan Yew *See Document 3 for more details about Moore’s Law.

4 © UCLES 2012 9694/43/O/N/12 DOCUMENT 2 Human brain vs computer The human brain is highly evolved and an amazingly complex ‘machine’ that is often compared to the most complex of man-made machines, digital computers. But brains and computers differ fundamentally. The brain is an evolved biological entity made from materials such as small organic molecules, proteins, lipids, carbohydrates, a few trace elements and quite a lot of salty water. A modern computer is built with electronic components and switches made with silicon, metal and plastic. Does it matter what a machine is made of? For computers the answer is ‘no’. Computer operations depend on components made from any suitable material. Cogs and hydraulics, or optical devices could replace the electronics of a modern computer without affecting the machine’s ability to compute. It seems extraordinarily unlikely either that the brain is simply performing computational algorithms, or that thinking could equally well be achieved with cogs and levers as with nerve cells. Perhaps we cannot expect computers to perform like brains, unless we find a way to build them in a biological medium. Computer scientists’ interest in neurosciences is quite understandable. After all, some aspects of what the brain does can be thought of as ‘computational’, and the digital computer is a compelling metaphor for the brain. But we must be careful not to see the brain as being like a computer, in the same way as the heart is like a pump. The heart is not just like a pump, it is a pump. It is possible to know everything about how the heart works, by understanding how it functions as a pump. We cannot speak of the brain in a similar way. If our model of how the brain works is dominated by reference to the way computers work, we will ultimately fail to understand the brain, because the most interesting thing it does – ‘thinking’ – is fundamentally not a computational process. Michael O’Shea Source: The Brain: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, 2005

5 © UCLES 2012 9694/43/O/N/12 [Turn over DOCUMENT 3 Robotic future You have probably heard about Moore’s Law. It says that CPU (Central Processing Unit) power doubles every 18 to 24 months or so. History shows Moore’s Law very clearly. Taking Moore’s Law literally, you would expect processor power to increase by a factor of 1000 every 15 or 20 years. Between 1981 and 2001, that was definitely the case. Clockspeed* improved by a factor of over 300 during that time, and the number of transistors per chip increased by a factor of 1400. A processor in 2002 was 10 000 times faster than a processor in 1982 was. This trend has been in place for decades, and there is nothing to indicate that it will slow down any time soon. Scientists and engineers always get around the limitations that threaten Moore’s Law by developing new technologies. The same thing happens with RAM chips and hard disk space. A 10 megabyte hard disk cost about $1000 in 1982. Today you can buy a 250 gigabyte drive that is twice as fast for $350. Today’s drive is 25 000 times bigger and costs one third the price of the 1982 model because of Moore’s Law. In the same time period (1982 to 2002) the standard RAM available in a personal computer has gone from 64 kilobytes to 128 megabytes – it improved by a factor of 2000. What if we simply extrapolate out, taking the idea that every 20 years things improve by a factor of 1000 or 10 000? What we get is a machine in 2020 that has a processor running at something like 10 trillion operations per second. It has a terabyte of RAM and one or two petabytes of storage space. A machine with this kind of power is nearly incomprehensible. In 2020, every kid will be running their video games on a $500 machine that has that kind of power. What if we extrapolate another 20 years after that, to 2040? Human brains are thought to be able to process at a rate of approximately one quadrillion operations per second. A CPU in 2040 could have the processing power of a human brain, and it will cost only $1000. It will have a petabyte of RAM. It will have one exabyte of storage space. An exabyte is 1000 petabytes. That’s what Moore’s Law predicts. 1981 2001 2021 2041 Processor 330 thousand ops/sec 1 billion ops/sec 10 trillion ops/sec 10 quadrillion ops/sec Disk space 10 megabytes 250 gigabytes 1 petabyte 1 exabyte Memory (RAM) 64 kilobytes 256 megabytes 1 terabyte 1 petabyte A typical home computer in 2050 will have processing power and memory capacity that exceeds that of a human brain. The point is simple. In 2050, robots will displace millions of employees, leaving them unable to find work and therefore destitute. I believe that it is time to start rethinking our economy and understanding how we will allow people to live their lives in a robotic nation. Marshall Brain *clockspeed – the operating speed of a computer.

6 © UCLES 2012 9694/43/O/N/12 DOCUMENT 4 Brain–Mind A lot of research has been able to show us which parts of the brain are active during certain activities, but not how those parts actually function. Probably the most comprehensive idea we came up with was to use computers to imitate the brain, to see if this would help us to understand it better. It is possible, in my opinion, that however our brain was made (whether it be by evolution or God), it was formed deliberately so that we should never understand how it works. If we did know everything about the brain, then we would also be able to manipulate it in many ways. This may be seen as a good thing or a bad thing, depending on how you look at it. Exploring the mind could have serious moral implications, as we could reach a stage where people’s private thoughts were no longer private, where thoughts could be manipulated, memories could be erased; the possibilities are endless. Maybe humans should stop being so arrogant that they think they can do anything. We know that if you give a computer a command that it has never encountered before and is not programmed to understand, it will not do it. In the same way, if a human brain encounters something unknown, like words spoken in a foreign language, it will not understand. There is a discrepancy in this, however. That is that if you continue to give this computer the same command over and over, you will not make any progress. On the other hand, if foreign language is encountered enough by the human brain, it will eventually pick it up and learn what it has heard. This is because there are other factors involved. The human brain can recognise facial expressions, gestures and even perceive emotion. In this way, it will eventually learn what is being said, even though the initial words have remained the same. That brings me to the question: do we also have the added advantage over the computer of using our minds, which are apart from our physical brains? But can there really be something called the ‘mind’ which is non-physical, or is everything including our mind just a bounded set of physical objects? Then the other interesting question arises: if mind is not matter, and therefore non-bounded and non- physical, how can it control the brain which consists of matter? In our model of today’s laws, only physical entities can cause a change in a physical object. But if we accept the concept of mind, then the brain can be influenced by non-matter, which is obviously not bounded in space. If the brain can be influenced by non-matter, what is there to stop my mind from influencing your brain too? Tony

7 © UCLES 2012 9694/43/O/N/12 DOCUMENT 5 Some blogger views ----------------------------- Computers are fast but dumb. As a software engineer I know, all too well, how much effort and persistence is needed to make the computer do what I want. My three-year-old daughter amazes me more than all the computers I have worked with in the last 20 years. Since the conception of the computer, people have dreamed about computers thinking like humans (like HAL in the film 2001: A Space Odyssey). But 2001 has passed without a trace of them. Whenever I read now about people pursuing artificial intelligence I know they are either scientists who seek funding for their pet projects or futurists who need promotion for their book. Only people with lots of money or time to dream take them seriously. ----------------------------- We’re capable of art, and love, and they are not. ----------------------------- More proof? Ok. Boot your machine, start your browser, and watch as the internet hacks your PC within minutes. Easy. Smart machines? No. Stupid software. Brains are really safe for quite some time into the future. ----------------------------- Why bother building an artificial brain you ask? Who wouldn’t want a conversation with the most intelligent entity in the world? -----------------------------

8 Copyright Acknowledgements: Document 2 Document 3 Document 5 © ADAPTED: Michael O’Shea; The Brain: A Very Short Introduction; Oxford University Press; 2005. © ADAPTED: Marshall Brain; www.marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm; 2008. © ADAPTED: opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/…/guest-column-computers-vs-brains. The New York Times Company; 2010. Permission to reproduce items where third-party owned material protected by copyright is included has been sought and cleared where possible. Every reasonable effort has been made by the publisher (UCLES) to trace copyright holders, but if any items requiring clearance have unwittingly been included, the publisher will be pleased to make amends at the earliest possible opportunity. University of Cambridge International Examinations is part of the Cambridge Assessment Group. Cambridge Assessment is the brand name of University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate (UCLES), which is itself a department of the University of Cambridge. © UCLES 2012 9694/43/O/N/12 BLANK PAGE

CAMBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL EXAMINATIONS GCE Advanced Level MARK SCHEME for the October/November 2012 series 9694 THINKING SKILLS 9694/43 Paper 4 (Applied Reasoning), maximum raw mark 50 This mark scheme is published as an aid to teachers and candidates, to indicate the requirements of the examination. It shows the basis on which Examiners were instructed to award marks. It does not indicate the details of the discussions that took place at an Examiners’ meeting before marking began, which would have considered the acceptability of alternative answers. Mark schemes should be read in conjunction with the question paper and the Principal Examiner Report for Teachers. Cambridge will not enter into discussions about these mark schemes. Cambridge is publishing the mark schemes for the October/November 2012 series for most IGCSE, GCE Advanced Level and Advanced Subsidiary Level components and some Ordinary Level components.

Page 2 Mark Scheme Syllabus Paper GCE A LEVEL – October/November 2012 9694 43 © Cambridge International Examinations 2012 1 Do you think that the local government’s decision to close Sinar’s Leisure Learning Centre can be justified on the basis of the statistics and information provided? Justify your answer. [5] There are many reasons why the information provided may be insufficient to justify the decision. Credit 1 mark for identification and 2 marks for development (e.g. reference to why a certain factor is significant to the council’s decision) – max 5 marks Example answer: • Relative local populations not given [1]; Sinar’s having the highest total expenditure may be justified by it being the largest town in the region [1]. Other areas around which points can be developed include: • No information on demographics for the 8 areas which could provide many reasons for different patterns of expenditure. • 2011-2012 may have been an atypical year. • Figure for staff employed per local population head may be misleading if say Sinar, being a historic town, has high rates of tourists. • Ranked values not very informative about actual differences between values. • Absolute values compared with values per population head – unreasonable. • Selective sample of library records from June 2012. • Book-borrowing only a limited representation of services provided by centre. • High expenditure may have been due to some kind of investment, e.g. purchasing IT resources. 2 Briefly analyse the argument in Document 1: Electronic Brain, by identifying its main conclusion and main reasons and/or intermediate conclusions and counter-arguments. [6] CA – Some think it is not possible… MC – It would be worthwhile and beneficial for the human race to create artificial intelligence. CA – What we have developed in the area of computers is still not as interesting, powerful, and creative as the human brain. R – There is nothing we can do to stop computers evolving into superstructures. IC – It is inevitable that AI will come into being. R – …they will not have our negative human qualities… IC – A world where robots interact with human beings will be a more peaceful world. R – It will work on a similar frame of creative capabilities as human brains. IC – An AI computer brain will be para-human. R – There will be many ways in which a computer brain can outperform the human brain. CA – There are certain dimensions of human experience that may not be accessible to a computer brain. IC – Such a computer brain is far superior to the human brain. IC – Such a computer brain…will enhance human lives. (NB if these two written in one sentence only credit 1) Marks 1 mark for each emboldened element (maximum 4 if MC not identified). Max 2 available for identification of CAs.

Page 3 Mark Scheme Syllabus Paper GCE A LEVEL – October/November 2012 9694 43 © Cambridge International Examinations 2012 3 Critically evaluate Tan’s argument in Document 1: Electronic Brain, by identifying and explaining strengths, weaknesses, implicit assumptions and flaws. [9] Weakness Para 1 Ad hominem: “…such people must be driven by fear of being challenged by a greater intelligence...” Para 2 Assumes Moore’s Law to be truth; however, this is not a physical law but a hypothesis / futurist prediction / extrapolates from trends. Conflation of processing speed with human intelligence / intellectual prowess. Mere processing speed will not make the computer brain as “interesting, powerful and creative” as the human brain. Assumption that current rates of progress will continue (i.e. that Moore’s Law is correct). Assumption that there are no other factors/variables which may impede advance, e.g. wars, problems of funding. Restricting the options – there maybe other ways to manage exponential growth than to simply stop manufacturing computers. Circularity / begging the question: “inevitable that AI will come into being” – only repeats earlier assertion that computers will continue to evolve. Irrelevance: “…a $1000 computer will reach speeds surpassing the entire human species” does not have any meaning and therefore has no relevance. Assumption that we will not stop making computers. Assumption that humans will not continue to have conflicts with each other and prevent peace. Para 3 Contradiction: The author argues that AI will have feelings, but then goes on to exclude feelings such as greed. Assumption that competitiveness is generally a bad thing. Para 4 Necessary / sufficient – capability for face and voice recognition may be necessary but are not sufficient for breaking down cultural barriers, such as ingrained hostilities and stereotypes.

Page 4 Mark Scheme Syllabus Paper GCE A LEVEL – October/November 2012 9694 43 © Cambridge International Examinations 2012 Para 5 Non-sequitor: that superior brains will enhance human lives – does not follow without further explanation as to how. Contradiction: It is claimed that computer brains will not have access to emotional experiences, but Para 3 states that they will have feelings. Assumption that emotional experiences in social contexts is not needed for survival in the modern world. Assumption that capability of computer brains will not negatively affect the quality of human lives e.g. many jobs may be lost if machines replace human skills / that computers may not be used to carry out negative and destructive purposes. Equivocation: shift of meaning from superiority in terms of technical excellence, which is measurable, to superiority in terms of greatness, which is subjective and cannot be measured in the same way. Strength Tan does respond to relevant counter-argument/s in attempt to build up his case e.g. “what we have developed in the area of computers is still not as interesting, powerful and creative as the human brain” although he relies mostly on extrapolation and hypothesis. Overall Evaluation A weak argument. Tan argues that the creation of AI is inevitable, but it does not therefore follow that it would be worthwhile and beneficial, in other words desirable. He emphasises functional superiority as the appeal factor but this is not sufficient to support why computer brain should be built. He has not argued convincingly for why it would be desirable. Marks For each sound evaluative point 1 mark and 2 marks for a developed point, to a maximum of 8 marks. Up to 2 marks for an overall judgment on the argument. (Maximum 9 marks.)

Page 5 Mark Scheme Syllabus Paper GCE A LEVEL – October/November 2012 CODE # © Cambridge International Examinations 2012 4 ‘A computer brain will be as good as, if not better than, a human brain.’ Construct a well-reasoned argument either for or against this statement, commenting critically on some or all of Documents 1 to 5, and introducing ideas of your own. [30] Band Overall Within Score Developed consideration of counter- positions. Knows precisely what complexities face own argument. Band IV Considers counter-positions to own argument and reflects on implications in arriving at conclusion. Limited development of 1 or 2 counter-positions to own argument. 27–30 Introduces further relevant lines of argument building their own position, with supporting examples. Outlines some complexities. Combines different viewpoints, or synthesizes arguments from different documents, using own ideas or critical comments or fresh perspectives. 22–26 Band III Well-reasoned, coherent argument, which should include evaluation of sources, integration of viewpoints, further argument and simple consideration of counter-arguments (or conflicting sources). Must reference 3+ documents. Forges a chain of reasoning through examining multiple sources. Compares and contrasts documents relevantly. Good interpretation of sources. Applies precise critical comments/evaluation to a source. 17–21 Some independent reasoning / implicit critical comments. Clear statement of 3 or 4 reasons in support. 12–16 Band II A reasoned stance: a clear conclusion, supported by reasons clearly expressed but uncritically selected from the sources. Implicit or explicit reference to document/s. Reasons indiscriminately selected. Little clear independent or no independent reasoning. Some irrelevance / deviation from the question. May be multiple conclusions with little support for each one. Too brief a response, even if accurate. 7–11 Reproduced reasoning from Q2 and Q3. Disorganised. Unconvincing attempts to construct reasoning. 2–6 Band I ‘Pub rhetoric’: unclear or no conclusion; reasoning that goes off question target at a tangent; substantial irrelevant material. Completely misunderstands or no understanding of question. Stream of consciousness. Wholly irrelevant/deviant/incoherent material. No attempt. 0–1

Page 6 Mark Scheme Syllabus Paper GCE A LEVEL – October/November 2012 CODE # © Cambridge International Examinations 2012 Indicative content Credit will be given for the judicious use of resources in the documents and cross- referencing material relevantly. Candidates need to judiciously select and use material within stimulus documents, commenting, comparing and contrasting relevant material to support or challenge their case e.g. supporting the claim in document 1 that a computer can out-perform the human brain by functioning thousands of times, better and without fatigue, must also take into consideration the claim in document 2 that the thinking process differs fundamentally from functional / computational processes. Document 3’s conclusion that humans are facing the threat of a robot takeover can be used against document 1’s claim of the benefits of creating AI. Credit will be given for critical evaluation of stimulus sources, critical interpretation of evidence and inferences, and forging critical reasoning e.g. document 3 discusses the likelihood of robots displacing human resources but this is only in terms of manpower, i.e. that it cannot be concluded that human creativeness would be replaced, if we consider document 4’s claim that the human mind is not the same as the brain. Marshall Brain projects that robots will compete with and overtake human beings in the future, leaving the latter destitute. In critically evaluating if this claim is credible or too far-fetched / sensationalist (since he admits Moore’s law has limitations), reference can be made to the blogger view that Brain could be a dreamer with vested interest; or that processor speed alone does not define intelligence. Documents 1 and 3 corroborate in their predictions of artificial intelligence (AI) and calls for examining if it may be possible or even inevitable that AI may eventually surpass the human brain, or whether human intelligence would also be progressing as time passes to keep ahead of electronic intelligence. Critical reasoning should focus the terms ‘good’ and ‘better’ in terms of the desirability of AI. Credit will be given for the synthesis of arguments from different sources, awareness of complexities, proposing further arguments, and consideration of counter-arguments to own position e.g. A conclusion that a computer brain is as good as, if not better than, a human brain, should crucially have considered the question of how beneficial and worthwhile this development can be. Candidates may bring other examples and observations comparing the human brain with AI. They may explore the moral implications if any of letting robots control human destiny, and the question of desirability of such. They may argue that the AI and human brain arrive at similar outcomes only through different paths and consider if AI can satisfactorily replace the human brain, given the complexities. To obtain higher bands, candidates should consider counter-arguments and objections to their own position, and some response to these. Anecdotes from personal experience should not dominate the discussion to the exclusion of other considerations raised by the stimulus sources; they should be weighed in the balance properly. No marks are reserved for the quality of written English or specialist knowledge of the subject matter/s in the stimulus material. It is the quality of critical thinking and reasoning alone which is under assessment.