Cultural advice

The Australian National University acknowledges, celebrates and pays our respects to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people of the Canberra region and to all First Nations Australians on whose traditional lands we meet and work, and whose cultures are among the oldest continuing cultures in human history.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are advised that ANU Library collections may include images, names, voices, and other representations of deceased persons.

Material in the collection may contain terms, language or views that reflect the period in which the item was created and may be considered inappropriate today.

Why ChatGPT doesn’t think: an argument from rationality

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorStoljar, Danielen
dc.contributor.authorZhang, Zhihe Vincenten
dc.date.accessioned2025-05-23T18:24:46Z
dc.date.available2025-05-23T18:24:46Z
dc.date.issued2024en
dc.description.abstractCan AI systems such as ChatGPT think? We present an argument from rationality for the negative answer to this question. The argument is founded on two central ideas. The first is that if ChatGPT thinks, it is not rational, in the sense that it does not respond correctly to its evidence. The second idea, which appears in several different forms in philosophical literature, is that thinkers are by their nature rational. Putting the two ideas together yields the result that ChatGPT is not a thinker. The paper sets out the argument in detail and shows how it can withstand numerous objections. We end the paper by contrasting the argument from rationality with a more well-known argument often taken to show that ChatGPT doesn’t think, due to Bender and Koller.en
dc.description.statusPeer-revieweden
dc.identifier.issn0020-174Xen
dc.identifier.scopus85209889248en
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85209889248&partnerID=8YFLogxKen
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1885/733752892
dc.language.isoenen
dc.rightsPublisher Copyright: © 2024 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.en
dc.sourceInquiry (United Kingdom)en
dc.subjectArtificial intelligenceen
dc.subjectChatGPTen
dc.subjectinferenceen
dc.subjectlarge language modelsen
dc.subjectrationalityen
dc.subjectthoughten
dc.titleWhy ChatGPT doesn’t think: an argument from rationalityen
dc.typeJournal articleen
dspace.entity.typePublicationen
local.contributor.affiliationStoljar, Daniel; School of Philosophy, Research School of Social Sciences, ANU College of Arts & Social Sciences, The Australian National Universityen
local.contributor.affiliationZhang, Zhihe Vincent; Australian National Universityen
local.identifier.doi10.1080/0020174X.2024.2427061en
local.identifier.pure1fc30d3e-362d-4c87-aa2f-0ad9325c2027en
local.identifier.urlhttps://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85209889248en
local.type.statusAccepted/In pressen

Downloads

Collections

ANU Research Publications

DSpace software copyright © 2002-2026 LYRASIS