D2: Module 2 Discussion Board | Homework Writings Help
I dont know how to handle this Philosophy question and need guidance.
One of the tenets of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is that a computer can be so designed that it can simulate human intelligence — and, if it can simulate it well enough, such a computer might as well be called “a thinking machine.” For example, if we set up a Turing Test where we couldn’t tell whether a human or a computer was responding, many AI theorists would claim that it is reasonable to deem the computer (in conjunction with the program it is running) “intelligent,” since there is no discernible difference between its output and the human’s response.
A very prominent American philosopher, John Searle, proposed an ingenious thought experiment to show that computers can never be said to be “intelligent” or to have understanding. Your assignment is to (1) watch the video below, and then (2) comment on Searle’s argument. You also may want to (3) read the two optional short encyclopedia articles. Has he proven that artificial “intelligence” is a misnomer? Does this mean that human “understanding” proves that we have something special (a “mind”) that machines can never possess? Or is it possible that artificial “intelligence” might evolve or spontaneously emerge as computer algorithms become more sophisticated?
Three links you’ll need to begin:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/#3 https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/ Read at least section 3)
http://www.iep.utm.edu/chineser/#H1 https://www.iep.utm.edu/chineser/ (Read at least section 1)
The question here is not “are computers, such as the one in my pocket or on my desktop currently intelligent?” That is not a philosophically interesting question. Our question is “is intelligence the sort of thing that can ever be attributed to a non-human?” This is a philosophically interesting question about the nature of intelligence. Remember that replies of the form “I agree” or “Nice Post!!!” tend not to impress me much, and are unlikely to earn a passing grade. If you really do agree, be sure that your reply brings something new to the discussion, and takes it to the next level, by making reference to outside research, or the original Turing article.
To get full credit for this post, you must:
- address the prompt(s) fully (write a paragraph or two). Cite the text where appropriate;
- respond meaningfully to one classmate’s posting (say something substantial – add to the discussion!) (your response should be a well-thought-out paragraph or two). Cite the text where appropriate; and
- use standard English and grammar in all postings.
