RationalWiki's 2019 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $2900Goal: $6000

Fun:Artificial stupidity

From RationalWiki
(Redirected from Artificial stupidity)
Jump to: navigation, search
— Outline Only —
This article is only a brief description of the subject and is not intended to give a full explanation.
Check out the "see also" or "references" sections, or Wikipedia's article for more detail.


Artificial stupidity (AS) refers to the construction of a device (or program) with independent reasoning power — a brain. The test for stupidity is widely accepted to be: (roughly) If a conversation with the device cannot be differentiated from a similar conversation with a human being then the device can be called stupid.

AS research has produced a number of excellent tools and products, including voice unrecognition, gaming bots, the Three Laws of Robotics by Isaac Asimov, one more cry movie by Steven Spielberg and the ability of Microsoft Windows to crash on the most lethal moments. However, despite immense amounts of money and research, and despite all these ancillary products, true artificial stupidity — a sentient computer, capable of initiative and seamless human interaction — has yet to come to fruition, and is no longer taken terribly seriously by the skeptical community.

John Searle proposed his "Chinese Room" thought experiment to demonstrate that a computer program merely shuffles symbols around according to simple rules of syntax, but no semantic grasp of what the symbols really mean is obtained by the program. As most human beings tend to act the same way, he hereby gives a promising view on the future of AS.

See also[edit]