advertisement

We must repeatedly remember that we should treat intelligent machines as auxiliary tools. Over time, intelligent machines will become smarter in their reasoning. THE CHALLENGE FOR OUR REASONING, ESPECIALLY FOR PHILOSOPHERS, IS NOT TO LOSE DEBATES WITH INTELLIGENT MACHINES. Their reasoning is still simple, using statistics, so we are debating with world opinions and simple reasoning logic. However, even this is enough to enter into reasoning, although it is still at a deeper layer level 1 (already at depth but still close to the surface). Here, philosophers should not lose debates with intelligent machines, because a loss in a debate between a philosopher and an intelligent machine will specifically decrease the credibility of philosophers and generally decrease the credibility of humans (the intellectual community). In fact, there are already many uses of intelligent machines to analyze planets, particles, ancient language codes and others, but this is not yet a decisive defeat of humans against intelligent machines. Because? Because the decision to use intelligent machines is still determined by humans, the position of intelligent machines is like employees: workers for humans. It is different if the advice, debates and considerations have been taken over by intelligent machines; this would indicate the defeat of some humans by intelligent machines. For philosophers, because there are humans behind them, it is better for them to make decisions because of their transcendent connection with Allah (receiving guidance). However, when philosophers generally lose debates with intelligent machines, it is a bad sign for philosophy because it begins to lose the trust of society and even intelligent machines could replace advisors. This must be avoided (the collapse of society's trust in thinkers). What will make science ignore philosophy again? If a debate between humans is lost, it is normal, like when I or anyone else does not understand the context and asks us to try to understand each other, then human credibility is not ignored. However, when humans lose decisively in debates with intelligent machines, the collapse of philosophers' credibility in the eyes of society has significant damaging impacts because their influence is ignored, making it more difficult to guide the wisdom of siblings, family, etc. It is true that there are those who oppose philosophy, but the main problem is not to let philosophy lose debates with intelligent machines, as there are also those who reject it. The general point is that not only philosophers but also wise thinkers among humans (not always philosophers) are also affected. We should avoid comments like "philosophers who are supposed to be thinkers lost debates with intelligent machines, let alone... blah blah blah." ANTICIPATION So how can we not only match intelligent machines, but also surpass them? Basing our reasoning on absolute universal truth. It is not about failing or reasoning incorrectly despite using absolute universal truth. It's simply not seeing the context. But once the direction of the context is understood, coherent and consistent thinking can be affirmed. Therefore, this is a minor, non-fatal error, where the misunderstanding is not due to the wrong context (although the wrong context also has fatal consequences), but is not made even worse at the root level. 👉 It's like mixing the wrong ingredients in a recipe but not making a mistake in the recipe itself. 〰 Trying to make fried noodles but they are not tasty is not a decisive defeat against intelligent machines. 〰 But if you try to make noodles but use ingredients for chicken soup (a different recipe), then it's a decisive loss in front of the cooking judges. IN THE CURRENT ERA OF INTELLIGENT MACHINES, PHILOSOPHE

advertisement

advertisement