The Human and the Mechanical: logos, truthfulness, and ChatGPT

Anastasia Giannakidou,Alda Mari

2024-02-02

Abstract:The paper addresses the question of whether it is appropriate to talk about `mechanical minds' at all, and whether ChatGPT models can indeed be thought of as realizations of that. Our paper adds a semantic argument to the current debate. The act of human assertion requires the formation of a veridicality judgment. Modification of assertions with modals (John must be at home) and the use of subjective elements (John is obviously at home) indicate that the speaker is manipulating her judgments and, in a cooperative context, intends her epistemic state to be transparent to the addressee. Veridicality judgments are formed on the basis of two components: (i) evidence that relates to reality (exogenous evidence) and (ii) endogenous evidence, such as preferences and private beliefs. `Mechanical minds' lack these two components: (i) they do not relate to reality and (ii) do not have endogenous evidence. Therefore they lack the ability to form a belief about the world and a veridicality judgments altogether. They can only mimic that judgment, but the output is not ground in the very foundations for it.

Computation and Language,Artificial Intelligence

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The issue discussed in this paper is whether it is possible to talk about "mechanical minds" and whether language models like ChatGPT can be considered as implementations of such minds. The paper presents a semantic argument that the assertion behavior of humans requires forming true judgments, which are based on two components: external evidence related to reality (external evidence) and individual preferences and personal beliefs (internal evidence). However, "mechanical minds" lack these two components, so they cannot form beliefs and true judgments about the world, only imitate them. The paper argues that human minds are not just a matter of computational power, citing Smith's view that artificial intelligence lacks human judgment ability. While large language models like ChatGPT can generate seemingly intelligent text, they only simulate human abilities and do not truly possess the ability to understand, judge, or engage in moral reasoning. The paper is based on Aristotle's concept of "logos" and points out that human minds have the ability to use language, reason, and make moral judgments, which mechanical minds do not possess. Lastly, the paper discusses the importance of veridicality judgment, which relies on objective evidence and subjective factors, something that AI systems like ChatGPT cannot perform because they cannot relate to the real world and lack internal evidence. Therefore, the paper argues that referring to AI as "mechanical minds" is metaphorical, as AI can only ever be a computational tool and cannot be equated with the judgment power of human minds.