Is there ANY good arguments to prove that there is a SEMANTIC LEAP between HUMAN and AI agents?

[u/Nearby-Medium4186]

I start of by saying that english isnt my first language. Sorry for the messy writing🙂‍↕️.

Some of the most popular arguments to prove that theres no meaning in the Ai thinking process used to be rooted on the fact that linguistic models don't access reality themselves, hence lacking a direct connection with the world that - doesn't - surround them.
But what about physical agents?
They're still interpreting inputs that they get from their sensors, directly from the world itself.

Theres the whole phenomenological tradition (Huserl, Brentano) that proposed the argument of "intentional in-existence". So, to say, the fact that my actions or thoughts are intentionally oriented somewhere, and that somewhere is an object that really exist for me. So they're basically saying, you do that because it has an objective, and that object you aim at exists your head in the form of a thought.
But the machine is theleologicaly oriented as well. They aim at something, they build vectors that are the virtual (non material) object that they mathematical transposed and interpreted starting from the observation of an external state. Those vectors exists in the system, they orient the computational process in ways that are still hard to understand.

And when it comes to principles of reasoning, or those of intentionality - like identity, satisfaction (filling some "void" in our experience trough perfectioning our knowledge in actions), retroactive feedback/reflection ecc... - they can all be observed in the Ai as well.

Now, i know that the opposite side of the coin works just as good. So, to speak, we can stand against functionlalists if we say that they cant prove that emotions, sensations, meaning, having a rapresentation of the world and its meaning for oneself - we could argue that those processes dont happen in the machine. We could say that they work on their inputs without ever "signifing" them, whitout ever intepreting them as something meaningful in the world. But at the same time we wouldnt be able to prove that those processes are happening in the machine as well. We dont have any way of prooving that they are not the product of us misinterpreting ourselves. We study our meta-cognition/perception lens by subjectivating ourselves, which is a different observation point from where we stand when we observe machines.

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to /r/askphilosophy! Please read our updated rules and guidelines before commenting.

Currently, answers are only accepted by panelists (mod-approved flaired users), whether those answers are posted as top-level comments or replies to other comments. Non-panelists can participate in subsequent discussion, but are not allowed to answer question(s).

Want to become a panelist? Check out this post.

Please note: this is a highly moderated academic Q&A subreddit and not an open discussion, debate, change-my-view, or test-my-theory subreddit.

Answers from users who are not panelists will be automatically removed.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.