Do artificial intelligence systems understand?

Claridades. Revista de Filosofía 16 (1):171-205 (2024)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Are intelligent machines really intelligent? Is the underlying philosoph- ical concept of intelligence satisfactory for describing how the present systems work? Is understanding a necessary and sufficient condition for intelligence? If a machine could understand, should we attribute subjectivity to it? This paper addresses the problem of deciding whether the so-called ”intelligent machines” are capable of understanding, instead of merely processing signs. It deals with the relationship between syntax and semantics. The main thesis concerns the inevitability of semantics for any discussion about the possibility of building conscious machines, condensed into the following two tenets: ”If a machine is capable of understanding (in the strong sense), then it must be capable of combining rules and intuitions”; “If semantics cannot be reduced to syntax, then a machine cannot understand.” Our conclusion states that it is not necessary to attribute understanding to a machine in order to explain its exhibited “intelligent” behavior; a merely syntactic and mechanistic approach to intelligence as a task-solving tool suffices to justify the range of operations that it can display in the current state of technological development.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

    This entry is not archived by us. If you are the author and have permission from the publisher, we recommend that you archive it. Many publishers automatically grant permission to authors to archive pre-prints. By uploading a copy of your work, you will enable us to better index it, making it easier to find.

    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 106,168

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The singularity: A philosophical analysis.David J. Chalmers - 2010 - Journal of Consciousness Studies 17 (9-10):9 - 10.
Who's afraid of the Turing test?Dale Jacquette - 1993 - Behavior and Philosophy 20 (2):63-74.
Fundamental issues in social robotics.Brian R. Duffy - 2006 - International Review of Information Ethics 6 (12):2006.

Analytics

Added to PP
2024-06-06

Downloads
26 (#944,915)

6 months
15 (#211,851)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Carlos Perez
University of Houston

References found in this work

What is it like to be a bat?Thomas Nagel - 1974 - Philosophical Review 83 (4):435-50.
Rules and representations.Noam Chomsky (ed.) - 1980 - New York: Columbia University Press.
Critique of Pure Reason.I. Kant - 1787/1998 - Philosophy 59 (230):555-557.
What is it like to be a bat?Thomas Nagel - 1979 - In Mortal questions. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 435 - 450.
Rules and representations.Noam A. Chomsky - 1980 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3 (1):1-15.

View all 14 references / Add more references