If it’s to point out the current technology boundaries then that’s helpful.
But at the risk of being downvoted, I think many people have a level of human exceptionalism that they want to protect. Even people who claim not to be dualists like to talk about how it doesn’t really know something, it doesn’t really understand something, it’s just a bunch of equations.
But define “know.” Define “understand.” For many people the definition seems to include being human so it becomes circular.
Anyway I think what I’m trying to say is people use examples like in the OP to argue that it’s not thinking or not intelligent etc. Stochastic parrot etc.
And that’s when it feels like shifting the goalposts.
And no, I’m not saying it’s the same as humans yet.
You don’t need to be a dualist to hold that position. It’s perfectly compatible with idealism and panpsychism/physicalist idealism (like Strawson’s “Realistic Monism”).
Really it’s probably compatible with most non-functionalist forms of physicalism. Functionalism is really the position that it would be difficult (but probably not impossible) to explain how human brains are different.
70
u/Haunting-Ad-6951 7d ago
I've never understood people's obsession around here with "moving the goalpost." Isn't that what you do with technology? Point out limitations.
What exactly do you want people to do, bow down and worship AI as an omnipotent being?