3 ms·

There's a longstanding philosophical argument about this. Google 'Searle's Chinese Room'.

• zaroth 10y ago
  I believe it's fair to say that a computer programmed with knowledge of sufficient numbers of inputs and outputs does indeed "understand" -- in fact the computer can truly speak and converse in Chinese quite well. But I believe it's a distinction without a difference to say the Computer does not, in fact, understand Chinese in this case. Instead of arguing semantics I propose a different sort of distinction. A computer programmed as a deep neural net can understand remarkably well, and with that understanding it becomes a remarkable tool for automation. However it remains nothing more than a tool. No more intent than a hammer. And without will, certainly without will to evolve. Only in the sense that the algorithm is programmed to improve its fitness, it calculates coldly towards that end. Not ever in an innovative sense, and certainly not in an adversarial sense. I agree thoroughly with the other commenters that propose it's not that AI will defeat us, but rather AI will be just too useful that the economic damage will be extreme. AI will defeat us by replacing the need for us in all productive endeavors. Anything we can do it can do better, cheaper, so far up the value chain that only the elite will remain gainfully employed. Too much of human labor will be eaten by AI, we better get a hell of a lot better at educating our masses if we ever hope they will have something productive they're able to do. I wonder how the theory of competitive advantage stacks up against AI -- a good for which there is no scarcity!