"I will argue that in the literal sense the programmed computer understands what the car and the adding machine understand, namely, exactly nothing"
About this Quote
Searle’s line lands like a deadpan punchline aimed at Silicon Valley’s favorite metaphysics: the idea that enough computation magically becomes a mind. The phrasing is doing careful work. “In the literal sense” is a lawyerly trapdoor, insisting that we stop sliding between “it produces the right outputs” and “it knows what it’s doing.” Then he drags the conversation down from sci-fi romance to garage-floor machinery: a computer “understands” exactly as much as a car or an adding machine. Which is to say, it doesn’t. The comparison isn’t just snark; it’s a demotion. If you’re tempted to anthropomorphize software, picture the same reverence directed at a speedometer.
The intent comes straight out of Searle’s Chinese Room argument (1980), his most famous grenade tossed into debates about “strong AI.” Even if a system flawlessly manipulates symbols, he says, syntax isn’t semantics. Rules for shuffling tokens are not the same thing as grasping meaning. The subtext is a warning against a category error: mistaking performance for comprehension, simulation for possession.
Context matters here because Searle wasn’t denying that computers can be powerful, useful, even transformative. He was denying that computation, by itself, is the right kind of thing to generate mental states. The sting of “exactly nothing” is strategic: it forces readers to confront how much of AI hype depends on metaphor. When we call machines “intelligent,” are we describing an inner life or just flattering an interface?
The intent comes straight out of Searle’s Chinese Room argument (1980), his most famous grenade tossed into debates about “strong AI.” Even if a system flawlessly manipulates symbols, he says, syntax isn’t semantics. Rules for shuffling tokens are not the same thing as grasping meaning. The subtext is a warning against a category error: mistaking performance for comprehension, simulation for possession.
Context matters here because Searle wasn’t denying that computers can be powerful, useful, even transformative. He was denying that computation, by itself, is the right kind of thing to generate mental states. The sting of “exactly nothing” is strategic: it forces readers to confront how much of AI hype depends on metaphor. When we call machines “intelligent,” are we describing an inner life or just flattering an interface?
Quote Details
| Topic | Artificial Intelligence |
|---|---|
| Source | Help us find the source |
More Quotes by John
Add to List
