Dear Prof. Mario Radovan

I understand quite well what you mean. If we perform a conceptual analysis or investigation we will come to the conclusion that, as you say, "there are no intelligent machines and there is no artificial intelligence." I use to say that, at their best, the so called intelligent machines have grammar or fixed rules, but no semantics. However, such rules are, in the last analysis, designed/programmed by human programmers/designers. In other words, the so called intelligent machines only perform the way people designed and programmed them to do. More precisely, intelligent machines never go beyond the information they get from their designers/programmers.

As for the rights of intelligent machines, it might be asked the following: Have they also duties?

I follow you when you say that "a discourse about intelligent machines leads into a totalitarian society, in which people will succumb to what machines say."

The coexistence of artificial intelligence and natural silliness presents a dynamic interplay between technological advancement and human authenticity. Artificial intelligence strives to revolutionize industries with its data-driven insights and automation, promising efficiency and accuracy. On the other hand, natural silliness, a distinct facet of human nature, fosters creativity, emotional connection, and cultural diversity. Instead of a competition for dominance, a harmonious synergy is emerging. As AI continues to evolve and refine processes in various sectors, it leaves space for the enduring importance of human silliness. While AI streamlines tasks, human silliness fuels relationships, sparks innovation, and allows for unfiltered emotional expression. Striking a balance between these two seemingly disparate forces acknowledges the unique contributions of each, creating a future that capitalizes on technological potential while celebrating the timeless essence of human interaction.

I wonder to what extent we can' say that the following quote by Aldous Huxley --- "People will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think."--- does not get the gist of the above mentioned thread by Prof. Mario Radovan

Orlando M Lourenço - I say that the word "people" is vague, very vague. "People" consist of power-holders and the rest of us. Power-holders are those who have economic, cultural and administrative power. Criminal organization have big power too. Power-holders exert essential influence on everything; common peole accept nearly everything. I appreciate Huxley; but I use the words "people" and "we" carefuly; "people" do not decide virtually anything.

Mario Radovan.

Thanks for your post, and the well taken considerations it contains. Yes, as you say, the word "people" is vague, very vague. And, as you also say, People" consist of power-holders and the rest of us. ....." .Uncritical minds accept nearly everything. In this vein and to some extent, they remind me of the so called intelligent machines. These machines also accept programs or software their designers/programs want to install in them,

Good to know that you use the words "people" and "we" carefully.

"People", you say, do not decide virtually anything. Whom are then those who take decisions? Human beings, deciders?

With the exception of technological and scientific concepts, most of the spoken and written language is vague, very vague. Consider, for example, the word "things", which means all and nothing at the same time.

Alas! I am now noticing that you have used the word "people" in your thread: "A discourse about intelligent machines leads into a totalitarian society, in which people will succumb to what machines say. (bold added).

The problem you raise (i.e., language vagueness) is a serious problem indeed! Any suggestion to tackle it?

Zoncita Del Mundo Norman

Anyway, with me, and without me, the world would have looked the same. What surprised me, was that a well-known professor of philosophy, Perer Singer, began to advocate the rights of intelligent machins, without any explanation of what is intelligence, what is a machine, and so forth. We have become profoundly shallow.

If we care for the rights of intelligent machines, we must care for the rights of stupid machines too. They need and deserve a special care.

I humbly confess that there are a lot of things I have to regret about. I am not a saint! If, by hypothesis, I had nothing to regret about I would continue, for example, to commit the same or even more serious mistakes, something I don't want to do.

"If, by hypothesis, I had nothing to regret about I would continue, for example, to commit the same mistakes ..."

A wise person never repeats the same mistakes; a wise person always makes new and bigger mistakes. This is how humanity progresses. --- This is what I wrote long ago; I remembered that now.

"Students will consult the AI to quick answers." - But this is not artificial intelligence. This is the intelligence of the people that constructed the system.

"It is such Strong AI that manifests itself with great discoveries." - How will AI know what is "great" and what is worthy of being discovered?

Discourse about AI is the worst kind of mysticysm in history.

R. R. Poznanski

I am shocked by the monumental increase of ignorance of scientists during the last fifty years.

What is consciousness? What is free will?

Computers are not more intelligent than steam engines are. They function in the way they were designed and programed.

What impresses me the most is the fact that (stupid) people KNOW what super-intelligent computers will do.

I am TOO stupid to know what "super-intelligent" computers will do. In my view, they will first eliminate people; they will be too intelligent to deal with science; instead of that, they will play some their games.

R. R. Poznanski

An entity that is not conscious may do excellent things for me, but I hold that it makes no sense to call this entity intelligent. Because such an entity does not even know what it is doing, and it is doing what it was programmed (by people) to do.

In sum, machines - steam engines, bulldozers and computers - have been doing impressive things. But I consider it wrong to call lifeless machines intelligent. And it is dangerous to do so, because people may begin to believe and obey whatever such machines order them to do.

I do not know how the brain "computes", but there is no indication that it does in the way lifeless machines do. Airplanes fly, but not in the way moquitos do.

A couple of things I wrote a long ago. --- The human brain may not have a sufficient capacity to understand its own structure and the way it functions. This would not be so strange as it may seem: the brain of a giraffe does not have the ability to understand its own structure and functioning, although it is "remarkably similar" to the human brain (in Kurzweil, 4).

A couple of things I wrote a long ago.

* It has been said that a computer can simulate the "emotional and moral intelligence of the human brain" (Kurzweil, 8). This claim is imprecise (unclear); anyway, a computer can simulate emotions only at the level of behaviour, not at the level of authentic feelings and motivations, which are the source and measure of authentic intelligence. To make a diagnose or to fly an airplane, we do not need authentic intelligence, but only the functional one. All skills and processes that can be described in computable (algorithmic) form, can be simulated by computers. But a simulation does usually not produce the real thing. A computer simulation of the processes that take place in the cow udder does not produce a real milk. In the computer simulation of "emotional intelligence" there are neither emotions nor authentic intelligence. What matters is the possession of emotions, not the capacity to respond properly to an input. To have and to behave are different things.

Can you please clarify what you mean by natural silliness because my opinion is that the concept is not right

This is a stylistic figure. Discourse about artificial intelligence is silly. There is no artificial intelligence. Machine functions in the way they were designed and programmed to do. Like washing machines.

Prof Mario Radovan

I have always maintained that in my opinion, AI is a good servant but not a good master.

If there is artificial intelligence, then human intelligence if prior to it. The so called artificial intelligent machines, like computers and robots, only do what they were programed to do by their respective human designers/programers. The so called artificial intelligent machines have rules and grammar, but know nothing about meaning and semantics.

In a nutshell, the so called artificial intelligent machines are not able to go beyond the information they get from their designers/programers. They are blind to some extent.