> We use hands, recognize hands, some of us can draw or sculpt accurate representations of hands, we can talk about aspects of hands such as grip and fingerleng

> We use hands, recognize hands, some of us can draw or sculpt accurate representations of hands, we can talk about aspects of hands such as grip and fingerlength. All of these things encompass the idea and physical instance of "hand" in much more than just the artistic sense. Sure, but the AI doesn't use hands so why would hands be of particular importance to the algorithm? Let's say the algorithm did draw perfect hands every time. Would you accept that it has understanding then? I doubt it. Your argument is essentially a slippery slope: no matter what it can do, you'd find something it didn't excel at and say "See, it has no understanding." > Also, we certainly know when we draw a hand poorly. Unless we are children, or have a brain condition. And if we are children or have a brain condition other adults wouldn't say that we have a good understanding of what a hand is. I've seen plenty of people claim they produce great art, when in reality it's terrible.