In Defense of Strong AI: Semantics as Second-Order Rules.

This paper argues against John Searle in defense of the potential for computers to understand language ("Strong AI") by showing that semantic meaning is itself a second-order system of rules that connects symbols and syntax with extralinguistic facts. Searle's Chinese Room Argument is contested on t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Stance (1943-1880) Vol. 10; pp. 38 - 44
Autor principal: Baron, Corey
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Ball State Innovation Corporation Apr2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=122688513&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: hlh
    uiTerm: 122688513
    longDbName: Humanities International Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        19431880
        B0S4
      jtl: Stance (1943-1880)
      issn: 19431880
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Apr2017
      vid: 10
      pid: 64501
      pub: Ball State Innovation Corporation
    artinfo:
      ui: 122688513
      ppf: 38
      ppct: 6
      formats:
        fmt:
          @attributes:
            type: P
            size: 590KB
      tig:
        atl: In Defense of Strong AI: Semantics as Second-Order Rules.
      aug:
        au: Baron, Corey
        affil: Senior at Colorado College in Colorado Springs, Colorado
      su:
        Semantics
        Searle, John R., 1932-2025
        Language & languages
      sug:
        subj:
          Semantics
          Searle, John R., 1932-2025
          Language & languages
      ab: This paper argues against John Searle in defense of the potential for computers to understand language ("Strong AI") by showing that semantic meaning is itself a second-order system of rules that connects symbols and syntax with extralinguistic facts. Searle's Chinese Room Argument is contested on theoretical and practical grounds by identifying two problems in the thought experiment, and evidence about "machine learning" is used to demonstrate that computers are already capable of learning to form true observation sentences in the same way humans do. Finally, sarcasm is used as an example to extend the argument to more complex uses of language.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: Y
      custom: Copyright of Stance (1943-1880) is the property of Ball State Innovation Corporation and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
      item: Stance (1943-1880)
      holder: Ball State Innovation Corporation
      dt:
        @attributes:
          year: 2017
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N