Dapatkah mesin bertindak secara cerdas? Dapatkah mesin menyelesaikan semua masalah yang akan diselesaikan seseorang dengan cara berpikir?
Apakah mesin memiliki budi dan kesadaran seperti manusia? Dapatkan mereka merasakan?
Apakah kecerdasan manusia dan mesin itu sama? Apakah otak manusia pada dasarnya merupakan sebuah komputer?
Tiga pertanyaan tersebut melambangkan ketertarikan peneliti, filsuf, dan ilmuwan kognitif kecerdasan buatan. Jawaban terhadap pertanyaan-pertanyaan tersebut bergantung pada bagaimana seseorang mendefinisikan "kecerdasan" atau "kesadaran" dan "mesin" mana yang sedang diperbincangkan.
Dalil-dalil penting dalam kecerdasan buatan adalah:
"Konvensi sopan" Turing: Apabila mesin bertindak secerdas manusia, maka mesin sama cerdasnya dengan manusia.[2]
Usulan Dartmouth: "Setiap aspek pembelajaran atau ciri lain kecerdasan dapat digambarkan secara tepat sehingga sebuah mesin dapat diciptakan untuk merangsangnya."[3]
Hipotesis sistem lambang fisikNewell dan Simon: "Sistem lambang fisik mempunyai arti tindakan kecerdasan umum yang penting dan mencukupi."[4]
Mekanisme Hobbes: "Nalar tidak lain adalah perhitungan."[6]
Catatan kaki
↑Russell & Norvig 2003, hlm.947 define the philosophy of AI as consisting of the first two questions, and the additional question of the ethics of artificial intelligence. Fearn 2007, hlm.55 writes "In the current literature, philosophy has to chief roles: to determine whether or not such machines would be conscious, and, second, to predict whether or not such machines are possible." The last question bears on the first two.
↑This version is from (Searle 1999), and is also quoted in Dennett 1991, hlm.435. Searle's original formulation was "The appropriately programmed computer really is a mind, in the sense that computers given the right programs can be literally said to understand and have other cognitive states." (Searle 1980, hlm.1). Strong AI is defined similarly by (Russell & Norvig 2003, hlm.947): "The assertion that machines could possibly act intelligently (or, perhaps better, act as if they were intelligent) is called the 'weak AI' hypothesis by philosophers, and the assertion that machines that do so are actually thinking (as opposed to simulating thinking) is called the 'strong AI' hypothesis."
Cole, David (Fall 2004), "The Chinese Room Argument", dalam Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, diarsipkan dari asli tanggal 2021-02-27, diakses tanggal 2011-02-09.
Dreyfus, Hubert (1979), What Computers Still Can't Do, New York: MIT Press.
Dreyfus, Hubert; Dreyfus, Stuart (1986), Mind over Machine: The Power of Human Intuition and Expertise in the Era of the Computer, Oxford, UK: Blackwell
Fearn, Nicholas (2007), The Latest Answers to the Oldest Questions: A Philosophical Adventure with the World's Greatest Thinkers, New York: Grove Press
Harnad, Stevan (2001), "What's Wrong and Right About Searle's Chinese Room Argument?", dalam Bishop, M.; Preston, J. (ed.), Essays on Searle's Chinese Room Argument, Oxford University Press, diarsipkan dari asli tanggal 2011-10-26, diakses tanggal 2011-02-09
Horst, Steven (Fall 2005), "The Computational Theory of Mind", dalam Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, diarsipkan dari asli tanggal 2021-03-04, diakses tanggal 2011-02-09.
Lucas, John (1961), "Minds, Machines and Gödel", dalam Anderson, A.R. (ed.), Minds and Machines, diarsipkan dari asli tanggal 2007-08-19, diakses tanggal 2011-02-09.
McDermott, Drew (May 14, 1997), "How Intelligent is Deep Blue", New York Times, diarsipkan dari asli tanggal 2007-10-04, diakses tanggal 2011-02-09
Moravec, Hans (1988), Mind Children, Harvard University Press
Newell, Allen; Simon, H. A. (1963), "GPS: A Program that Simulates Human Thought", dalam Feigenbaum, E.A.; Feldman, J. (ed.), Computers and Thought, McGraw-Hill;
