4 ms·

I agree with most of your points and I think there’s a good argument that CS should use different terms that don’t overlap with biology, but I don’t agree with

I agree with most of your points and I think there’s a good argument that CS should use different terms that don’t overlap with biology, but I don’t agree with this: > there is absolutely no evidence that supports this claim. Period The evidence is that it understands and can respond with human language which arose from purely biological processes. So until we understand how this happens we can’t say for sure that these things are not statistical models of part of the human brain. Maybe these models are picking up on Chomsky’s universal grammar or maybe they are emulating brains. We just don’t know. It might not be strong evidence, it might be indirect, but it is not a total and irrefutable absence of evidence.

BaseballPhysics 3y ago
> The evidence is that it understands and can respond with human language which arose from purely biological processes If you don't understand how this isn't evidence, I honestly don't know what to do. > So until we understand how this happens we can’t say for sure that these things are not statistical models of part of the human brain. I never said that. I said you can't affirmatively say they are, and further, that because we don't understand how the human brain works, the fact that we can make computers perform tasks that humans can is not evidence in favour of the idea that those computers are in some way modelling the way the human brain actually works. And that is the claim I've seen many people make. In fact that's the claim you just made. > We just don’t know. On that we agree.
YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
>> The evidence is that it understands and can respond with human language which arose from purely biological processes. Well, human mathematical thinking, including logical thinking, also arose from purely biological processes (self-evidently) and yet we have machines that can reproduce all that: digital computers. Perhaps we should consider computers already artificial intelligence? I actually think that yes, totally, 100% we should. But that makes for a definition of artificial intelligence that will disappoint most people who hope for Star Trek like computer-friends.

BaseballPhysics 3y ago

> The evidence is that it understands and can respond with human language which arose from purely biological processes If you don't understand how this isn't evidence, I honestly don't know what to do. > So until we understand how this happens we can’t say for sure that these things are not statistical models of part of the human brain. I never said that. I said you can't affirmatively say they are, and further, that because we don't understand how the human brain works, the fact that we can make computers perform tasks that humans can is not evidence in favour of the idea that those computers are in some way modelling the way the human brain actually works. And that is the claim I've seen many people make. In fact that's the claim you just made. > We just don’t know. On that we agree.

YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago

>> The evidence is that it understands and can respond with human language which arose from purely biological processes. Well, human mathematical thinking, including logical thinking, also arose from purely biological processes (self-evidently) and yet we have machines that can reproduce all that: digital computers. Perhaps we should consider computers already artificial intelligence? I actually think that yes, totally, 100% we should. But that makes for a definition of artificial intelligence that will disappoint most people who hope for Star Trek like computer-friends.