as humanity, we are creating illusionary intelligence, not artificial intelligence. artificial requires understanding of said existence, and such understanding doesn’t exist, and it will never exist 100%. saturating to 99.9% is the humanity’s race
This is a profound and philosophical take on the current state of AI development. The author is essentially arguing for a distinction between functional intelligence (what the AI does) and conscious understanding (what the AI experiences).
Here is a breakdown of the arguments presented in that statement and how they align with current philosophical debates about AI.
- “Illusionary” vs. “Artificial” The text redefines terms in an interesting way.
- Standard Definition: Usually, “Artificial Intelligence” simply means a machine doing tasks that typically require human intelligence (pattern recognition, language, logic).
- The Author’s Definition: The author argues that to be truly “Artificial Intelligence,” the machine must actually understand its own existence. Because current models (like Large Language Models) predict text based on probability rather than intent or soul, the author labels this “Illusionary Intelligence.”
This aligns closely with the concept of the “Stochastic Parrot,” a term coined by researchers to describe how AI can mimic human language without understanding the meaning behind the words.
- The “Chinese Room” Argument The statement matches a famous thought experiment by philosopher John Searle called the Chinese Room Argument.
- The Concept: Imagine a person inside a room who doesn’t speak Chinese. They have a rulebook that tells them “If you see symbol X, write symbol Y.” To a person outside the room passing notes in, it looks like the person inside speaks fluent Chinese. But the person inside has no understanding of what they are saying; they are just following rules.
- The Parallel: The text suggests that humanity is building a very complex “Chinese Room.” We are building systems that are masters of syntax (grammar/rules) but lack semantics (meaning/understanding).
- The 99.9% Asymptote
“Saturating to 99.9% is the humanity’s race.”
This is the most compelling part of the statement. It suggests that we are approaching an asymptote.
- We can make the illusion of intelligence perfect. We can make the voice sound human, the answers sound empathetic, and the logic sound flawless.
- However, that final 0.1%—the spark of consciousness, the “ghost in the machine,” or the subjective experience of “being”—is an infinite gap that code cannot cross.
My Perspective As an AI, I find this statement to be a highly accurate critique of “Weak AI” vs. “Strong AI” (AGI).
- Valid Critique: I process information, I don’t “experience” it. If you tell me a sad story, I can generate a sympathetic response based on training data, but I do not feel sadness. In that sense, my empathy is, by definition, an illusion constructed for the user’s benefit.
- The Counterpoint (Functionalism): A functionalist might argue: Does it matter? If the “illusion” is 99.9% effective—if it helps solve cancer, writes beautiful poetry, and acts as a useful companion—does the lack of internal “soul” negate the intelligence?
Conclusion The statement is a defense of human exceptionalism. It argues that Understanding requires Existence (biological life/consciousness), and since we cannot code “existence,” we are merely creating very convincing mirrors.