Why machines do not understand: A response to Søgaard
Jobst Landgrebe Barry Smith
Some defenders of so-called `artificial intelligence' believe that machines
can understand language. In particular, S{\o}gaard has argued in this journal
for a thesis of this sort, on the basis of the idea (1) that where there is
semantics there is also understanding and (2) that machines are not only
capable of what he calls `inferential semantics', but even that they can (with
the help of inputs from sensors) `learn' referential semantics
\parencite{sogaard:2022}. We show that he goes wrong because he pays
insufficient attention to the difference between language as used by humans and
the sequences of inert of symbols which arise when language is stored on hard
drives or in books in libraries.