Without access to what it’s like to experience first-person thinking, isn’t artificial intelligence only imitating what’s already automatic in our minds?
The first time I tried ChatGPT, I asked her to write an apology letter. In less than a minute, the prototype was up and running and his letter was perfect. This message I was stuck on, these words I couldn’t find, this delicate balance between repentance and justifications for my behavior; these very “human” nuances of psychology, the machine reproduced them much better than I would. Therefore, all users of ChatGPT felt concern, especially if they have a so-called “intellectual” profession (photographer, journalist, writer, etc.); Could it be concluded from this that there will come a day when the car will replace all of us?
In the video, Copernicus innovates again and takes a spin on robot dogs
“data-script=”https://static.lefigaro.fr/widget-video/short-ttl/video/index.js” >
Car man
However, it would be more appropriate to ask this question back. how is it possible that my mind can be imitated by artificial intelligence? Isn’t the latter itself a mirror of the mechanical rigidity that my cognitive life contains? What if, in other words, artificial intelligence could only imitate what, in our minds, was already automatic? These questions seem more likely to me to think about the genealogy of artificial intelligence. Its origins, in fact, do not go back to the technical invention of the computer, but to the great philosophical revolution during the Second World War; The emergence of the cybernetic movement in the United States. This current, uniting learned and versatile minds, proposed to define the human mind with the “machine” paradigm.
cognition and consciousness
Cognition, according to Norbert Wiener and Warren McCulloch, consisted of receiving, controlling, managing, and regulating information from the external world. In their eyes, the cognitive lives of the man and the robot underwent similar operations. Hence the possibility of artificial copying of the thoughts of the first, good or bad. But one may wonder what is the scope of such a vision of the mind; doesn’t it miss what exactly belongs to me in my embodied cognition? Speaking about the “hard problem” of consciousness, the Australian philosopher David Chalmers showed that there are two radically different ways of defining it. Of course, my mind is a concatenation of functional actions that can be scientifically grasped and mechanically objectified. But there will always remain an impassable gap between this approach to cognition and subjective experience, which implies the fact of perceiving, moving, thinking in the first person. This perspective is a matter of influence. it refers to what I feel when I encounter the pure phenomenon of being a spirit emerging within a body. It’s the story of me, who reacts to his universe as he discovers the world. An adventure typical of the living, without foundations and without figures, whose secrets no golem, however sophisticated, will steal.
Source: Le Figaro
