Re:Hallucination is inevitable: An innate limitation of larg...
by cultureswitch on Sunday February 25, 2024 @03:33PM
(#39504458)
That is the argument we're having though.
The central claim is that a machine which answers exactly the same thing a human would answer given the same input does not have understanding, while the human does.
This claim is religious, not scientific. In this worldview, "understanding" is a property of humans which can't be observed but exists nonetheless. It's like claiming humans have a soul.
The central claim is that a machine which answers exactly the same thing a human would answer given the same input does not have understanding, while the human does.
This claim is religious, not scientific. In this worldview, "understanding" is a property of humans which can't be observed but exists nonetheless. It's like claiming humans have a soul.