Man, this is so wrong in so many ways... > it is important to realize that ChatGPT is not artificial intelligence. The first is to assume that there is a tech

Man, this is so wrong in so many ways... > it is important to realize that ChatGPT is not artificial intelligence. The first is to assume that there is a technical, precise, objective and clear definition of "Artificial Intelligence". There isn't. He should know that. > it doesn't know anything and doesn't understand anything. And what does "know" or "understand" means in the context of a machine that doesn't even have self-consciousness? Besides, are you implying that human beings know stuff? The overwhelming majority of people knows very, very little. Most of the people I know are too lazy to think or doing the hard work of studying. I'd suggest Kahneman's "Thinking Fast and Slow" before putting any faith in people's "knowledge". > It plays games with words to make plausible-sounding English text, but any statements made in it are liable to be false. I think we can we apply the same judgment to Stallman's argument itself, since his concepts are so badly defined. And thank you for an open democratic society where every statement is liable to be false, regardless if it comes from a machine, Richard Stalman or Putin and Jiping. I'll take Turing's test approach: if it looks intelligent to me then it is certainly more intelligent than me. Also, I'll take Dijkstra approach: "the question on whether computers can think is as irrelevant as whether submarines can swim". Edit: to all Stallman's fanboys downvoting this: got any good argument?