CreateDebate


Debate Info

19
7
Definately Definately not
Debate Score:26
Arguments:11
Total Votes:28
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Definately (7)
 
 Definately not (5)

Debate Creator

brontoraptor(28873) pic



Will machines ever think?

Definately

Side Score: 19
VS.

Definately not

Side Score: 7
0 points

The primary argument of the article is that machines lack a sense of meaning and/or intentionality. But it’s conceivable that we could give this ability to machines. If an AI machine requires a material input to continue to function, and we program it to seek said input and avoid running out of it, then it will find meaning when observing sources of its input. It will find intentionality in its pursuit of said input. If we make this AI machine self replicating, then it can pass on meaning to its offspring. If we make primary functions of both the pursuit of input and the act of self-replicating, then it will have meaning and intentionality roughly mimicking life, but can it be said to think?

I don’t think the article goes far enough. While all thoughts are about something, and this is a hallmark of thought, it is not sufficient to define thought. Experience is also a necessary component of thinking ( at least in the way we are afraid of AI thinking). We would have to understand how a brain causes experience before we could ever know if a machine will think. We don’t know that yet.

Side: Definately
TheSnake(1) Disputed
1 point

The primary argument of the article is that machines lack a sense of meaning and/or intentionality.

Are you under the impression that nobody else can read?

But it’s conceivable that we could give this ability to machines.

Not according to the article.

Only a mind has intentionality, and intentionality is the hallmark of the mind.

But to believe that machines can think or that human thought is a kind of computation is a profound error. Belief in this fundamental error about AI will lead us away from, not toward, the truth about AI.

If an AI machine requires a material input to continue to function, and we program it to seek said input and avoid running out of it, then it will find meaning when observing sources of its input.

The article explains CLEARLY that you are wrong:-

The hallmark of human thought is meaning, and the hallmark of computation is indifference to meaning.

It is always the same game with you. Indecipherable gibberish backed up by a complete absence of any material evidence to support what you are saying. And that's when you're NOT directly contradicting what you claim to have read.

Side: Definately not

Bronto, my coffee machine could literally beat you in a debate.

It could beat you even if its central argument was: "I'm not a coffee machine".

Side: Definately not
5 points

Bronto, my coffee machine could literally beat you in a debate.

Only real men drink coffee. Obviously you have no coffee machine.

It could beat you even if its central argument was: "I'm not a coffee machine".

Which would mean it lost the debate by being wrong. Looks like I win again. What is that, 500 wins in a row for me?

Side: Definately
1 point

Only real men drink coffee.

This looks like a man to you, does it? You idiotic gay paedophile.

Supporting Evidence: Bronto Thinks This Is A Man (thumbs.dreamstime.com)
Side: Definately not
1 point

Which would mean it lost the debate by being wrong

Funny how being wrong never stops you but you think it should stop my coffee machine.

Side: Definately not