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.
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.
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?
Welcome to CreateDebate
CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy. If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
- Arguments with the highest score are displayed first. Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument. To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
- To vote for an argument, use these icons: You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument. Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change. Yes, you can change your vote.
- Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account. All scores are updated in real-time. To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
- When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument. If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.