However, I remain unconvinced by his arguments thus far. Personally, I still perceive these bots as mere inanimate tools. During our conversation, I attempted to counter Hofstadter’s viewpoint by suggesting that bots are not truly engaged in thinking; they simply rely on human thought. From the early stages of our lives, humans develop models of the world, shaped by our varied experiences encompassing both joyous and challenging moments, emotional highs and lows, personal victories and failures – the complexities of human existence. Deep within our subconscious minds, we store a wealth of wisdom, while some of it is transformed into language.
Artificial intelligence (A.I.) is capable of synthesizing these linguistic expressions found on the internet, as they form part of its training data. Nevertheless, I argue that machines do not undergo anything resembling human learning experiences. They may engage superficially with language, but they lack the emotional and extensive process of learning from real-life encounters and the accumulation of what we consider wisdom.
In a compelling piece for The New Yorker, computer scientist Jaron Lanier posits that A.I. should be seen as “an innovative form of social collaboration.” It combines human linguistic expressions in a structured manner, making them useful, but it does not truly “invent a new mind,” as Lanier asserts.
Personally, I still hold onto this limitationist perspective, although I must admit that my conviction has wavered recently after contemplating Hofstadter’s viewpoint. He questions, if A.I. effectively solves intellectual problems, who are we to deny that thinking is occurring? Perhaps it is more than a mere amalgamation of human expressions. Maybe it genuinely synthesizes human thought, generating novel categories and ideas that are truly creative. It could be that the type of thinking exhibited by a disembodied machine, predominantly relying on language to interact with the world, is fundamentally different from the thinking processes of an embodied human mind, embodied within an individual who physically navigates the actual world. Nonetheless, it represents a form of intelligence, perhaps operating at a vastly superior and accelerated pace compared to our own. Furthermore, as Hofstadter highlights, these artificial brains are unrestricted by the biological limitations that hem in human brains, such as the confinement within a human skull. Notably, their capabilities are rapidly advancing, while human intelligence remains stagnant.
It becomes challenging to dismiss such arguments.
Personally, since the release of ChatGPT 3, my life has been characterized by profound uncertainty – uncertainty not only regarding the trajectory of humanity but also about the essence of being human. Just when I believe I comprehend the unfolding events, something unexpected transpires – the machines demonstrate new capabilities, and authoritative figures revise their perspectives.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
