4 ms·
Not really but he would be right if he did. He argues that deep down the goal of the machine is to take decisions in humans contexts. Which by definition only
by di4na 6y ago
Not really but he would be right if he did.
He argues that deep down the goal of the machine is to take decisions in humans contexts. Which by definition only can make sense for a human.
Ofc we can argue about a fictional theoretical human like machine to the point it is undifferentiated from a human... but then we created a human. Not a machine anymore.
- avmich 6y ago> Not a machine anymore. It's like failing to see the difference between human and machine. One can argue then there is no difference right now. So? It's a time-honored discussion if machine can do all a human can. On the other hand, religion also has an associated long-living discussion. If we decide according to our beliefs, we should invent another mechanism - something other than reasoning, because it's not used here - to get to agreement.