Critique of Stanley Fish's Article Essay

The essay “Watson Doesn’t Know It Won on Jeopardy!” is a paper written by John Searle on February 23, 2011 that probes at how IBM’s computer Watson has no human understanding whatsoever. Searle begins by clearing up the common misconceptions about what a computer actually is. Searle explains that a computer is simply a machine that manipulates symbols based on a programs needs and wants, and that the computational power of a computer is not human understanding; it is in fact a measure of how fast a computer can manipulate symbols. Searle then proceeds to explain the process of how a computer works in terms of a human. He explains that a computer does not understand human language at all. A computer just has a program (in binary) that tells

In Minds, Brains, and Programs, John Searle provided various counterarguments to the proposition that strong artificial intelligence is similar to human cognition and that machines are able to have similar cognitive experiences as humans, such as having intentions, as long as it has the right program. The purpose of this article was to demonstrate opposing approaches, which outlined that the theory of strong AI is flawed. The author did this by providing examples of how to disqualify the support for the theoretical perspective that machines, even though they have the appropriate programming, still cannot understand as humans do. Through various explanations and replies to the arguments, Searle makes his point and give examples of the promises.

He believes computer cannot understand our language and mind enough to grasp all of our intended meanings. While this article does fall short with its complete lack of statistics along with a lack of sources that could add to his credibility, it is overall strong for his intended reader as her includes everyday examples that are easy to relate to and get the readers to think, juxtaposes Artificial Intelligence to human capabilities, and ends with a clear

Lycan provides us a distinct definition of Artificial Intelligence as being “the science of getting machines to perform jobs that normally require intelligence and judgement.” (Lycan, p.350) The argument

One of the hottest topics that modern science has been focusing on for a long time is the field of artificial intelligence, the study of intelligence in machines or, according to Minsky, “the science of making machines do things that would require intelligence if done by men”.(qtd in Copeland 1). Artificial Intelligence has a lot of applications and is used in many areas. “We often don’t notice it but AI is all around us. It is present in computer games, in the cruise control in our cars and the servers that route our email.” (BBC 1). Different goals have been set for the science of Artificial Intelligence, but according to Whitby the most mentioned idea about the goal of AI is provided by the Turing Test. This test is also called the

Alan Turing is known to be the father of the modern computer, and the skewed depiction of his relationship between him and his machine in the “Imitation Game (2015)” displays as to why Alan Turing may have had a keen interest in the idea of a machine's ability to “obtain” human consciousness. Alan Turing develops, and presents his Turing Test in his article “Computing Machinery and Intelligence” that entails having three groups: one of them is the machine, the other is a human, and the last is a judge who will ask both groups a series of questions to where the judge will determine who is the human, and who is the machine (Warwick, Shah, 2015.)

10 years ago IBM decided that Watson, a supercomputer “made up of 90 servers and 15 terabytes of memory – enough capacity to process all the books in the American Library of Congress” (Rose 2016), should be programmed to go up against Jeopardy champions. Watson can read one million books per second, but the trick

Unlike your typical game of chess on a Sunday evening, the contestants are far from ordinary; one of them is Garry Kasparov, a former world champion, and the other is IBM’s Deep Blue supercomputer. Yet for many, the first player is one that can pride itself with the ability to think, while the latter’s intelligence is artificial and ceases to exist without man, its creator. As such, we are faced with the ever-present question: Are machines truly capable of thinking? Not only is this question an entertaining philosophical brain teaser, but it is also in desperate need of an answer as our society becomes increasingly dependent on the cognitive powers of machines. With BBC’s recent report stating that “35% of jobs in the UK are at high risks of computerisation over the following 20 years,” the cost of overestimating or even underestimating machines’ intellectual capabilities could be devastating.

Cognitive computing is designed to address the many problems that exist. One is that of which many people feel that there is a “man versus machine” stigma. By educating the public as to what cognitive computing, such as IBM Watson can and will do to help in the world in ways from health care to the way a child learns in the educational area will assist in changing how the reputation of something new is always hard for people to adapt to change to trust and understand where this new technology is going in the next decade. Every era, technology is changing for the betterment. IBM Watson is designed to work with humans in order to find solutions to

Artificial intelligence is the behaviour of a machine which, if it were to be executed by a human, would be called intelligence (Tabassumirfana, 2010). For so many decades, artificial intelligence experts have been working towards the idea of creating machines that have human intelligence if not better and so far, they've had many successes like cars that can park themselves to computer applications that can spot bank fraud (Weeks, 2011).However, serious challenges still remain and some computer scientists wonder when, or if, machines will ever truly become intelligent.

Artificial Intelligence is a topic within the public media that has existed for decades, but is now a concern due to the reality of human advancement and innovation in the field of science and technology. Many people believe that computers will become self-aware or sentient and view humanity as a disposable resource and gain supremacy. Reasoning that research on the technology should halt and not become more advance. Whereas others believe they will help catapult research and the economy forward, supporting the operations and innovations the technology offers. The complicated and divided solutions to the debate aren’t obvious, but there are more benefits to improving artificial intelligence than there is stopping it. Therefore, the negative effects people believe will occur can be resolved.

The Chinese Room (CR) is a thought experiment intended to prove that a computer cannot have a mental life with a strong sense of intelligence alike to one that humans possess because a computer does not have a genuine understanding. Rather, a computer is a mere simulator of understanding, and by extension, a simulator of intelligence. According to John Searle, because computers lack a true understanding they are rendered incapable of possessing mental life as we know and experience it (Searle 2004). In the following paper, I intend to explain and philosophically examine John Searle’s argument of CR and will then proceed to reject his theory based on a series of objections. I will do this by examining the concept of “human intelligence” through a filmic analogy, put forth the Systems Reply objection, and examine how the CR argument is foregrounded in anthropocentric bias that presupposes only humans are capable of true intelligence. Overall, I argue that CR fails to convincingly argue that only humans can possess a “human” intelligence because it is an argument based more on intuitive claims, than sound reasoning.

The strategy to present a new technology was the same to astonish the public, revealing the progress about the Artificial Intelligence. This is the idea of IBM promotion, demonstrate how complex will be the future of the technology as same they had done in the past, anticipating the capacity of the personal computers. After the TV show, the Company invested in videos and materials1 promoting the idea of evolution and future of the computing, based in the cognitive science, however in a more practical form, translating the idea of this new system for a more real universe. Also, the another focus of the campaign is to advertise Watson in an emotionally level as involving arts, music, fashion industry. In this approach, the objective is to

John Searle's thought experiment in paper “Minds, brains and programs” from 1980 is one of the most recognisable and broadly accredited critiques of artificial intelligence (AI) - an idea that computers are (or some day will be) able to think. Researchers in AI field often make a claim that our mental activity can be compared to a computer following a program. In such a view human brains do nothing more but simply process information on a massive scale. The most important question that Searle wants to discuss in his paper is: “ What psychological and philosophical significance should we attach to recent efforts at computer simulations of human cognitive capacities?” (p. 417) In order to tackle this idea he establishes two different types of

“The real problem is not whether machines think but whether men do” (Skinner, 2017). Long before the birth of computers and the internet, technology reigned as one of mankind’s chief focal points. The greatest minds have always collaborated and competitively jostled for position on the world’s stage. Along the way, remarkable progress has been made. These visionaries have enabled the world to move and travel faster, have cured diseases, and expanded the banks of available information beyond measure.