Leo M. Chalupa discusses the concept of “thinking machines” and the limitations of current technology. He acknowledges that machines are excellent at processing vast amounts of data and making quick decisions, similar to some aspects of human thought. However, he argues that the term “thinking machine” is a misnomer because machines lack consciousness, self-awareness, and … Read more

David Gelernter argues that the concept of “machines that think” fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the mind and software. He uses the example of french fries to illustrate that certain physical states, like being happy, are not computable because they involve a physical object’s response to its environment. He asserts that computers and software can … Read more

Freeman Dyson dismisses the idea of machines that can think, stating that he doesn’t believe they currently exist or will exist in the near future. He argues that if he is wrong, his thoughts on the matter are inconsequential. Conversely, if he is correct, then the entire question of machines that can think becomes irrelevant … Read more

Emanuel Derman argues that machines can’t think because they are material objects designed to function in ways deemed useful by humans or animals. He references philosopher Stuart Hampshire’s interpretation of Spinoza, stating that one should not mix mental explanations for material phenomena, or vice versa. Derman maintains that as long as a machine’s behavior can … Read more

Keith Devlin argues that machines don’t think; they only appear to due to human programming. He distinguishes between decision-making and thinking, cautioning against attributing human-like intelligence to machines based on superficial cues. Devlin notes that humans are biologically wired to ascribe intelligent agency based on simple interactions, which can be misleading. He warns of the … Read more

Roy Baumeister argues that thinking machines are tools created by humans, lacking innate drives for survival or reproduction. He contends that computers are not inherently dangerous because they don’t possess malice or free will. For a machine to become a threat, it would need to act as an independent agent, capable of making choices against … Read more

Arnold Trehub argues that machines cannot think because they lack a unique perspective or point of view. He suggests that humans interpret the output of these machines, providing context and meaning to their symbolic structures. Despite this limitation, Trehub acknowledges that machines have significantly aided human thought.

George Church explores the idea that humans are already “machines that think,” capable of self-reprogramming and extending abilities through technology. He contrasts the efficiency and capabilities of biological brains (“carbo-brains”) with silicon-based brains (“sili-brains”), suggesting that as technology advances, we may shift from simulating to engineering our biological brains. Church raises ethical questions about the … Read more

Jaan Tallinn argues that artificial intelligence (AI) is a technology that requires careful development to mitigate existential risks, similar to how nuclear technology was handled. He points out that AI is even more complex because it’s a “metatechnology” that can develop other technologies, making risk assessment more complicated. Tallinn emphasizes that while there has been … Read more

Nicholas G. Carr argues that the real danger of artificial intelligence (AI) lies not in machines becoming sentient, but in their current mindless autonomy. He points out that AI’s strength comes from its ability to perform tasks without the distractions and biases that humans have. However, this also makes AI risky when deployed in complex, … Read more