Add critical thinking and we’ll create a human but more expensive.
And for what the cost are concerned: to call it more expensive in instance terms I want to see the numbers first, and - have you consider the cost of "unfinished" humans as liabilities? The costs of fools, of crooks, of the vile, of conformists etc.?
Fools, crooks, conformists, as well as `critical thinkers` have one in common — the need. Unless it's a human, machine would always think `as` it's a question it's existence depends on. But not really.
What AI can do at most — is to demonstrate our level of thinking. As well as recommendation algorithms can show what music is popular. Without constant feed from humans this makes no sense.
It just processes data, so change the data and it will produce different aggregate data, as in y=f(x). We just feed it the internet, so it spits out (mimics) internet as its derivatives. You are only personifying the current state of affairs.
You are probably speaking about the stochastic models we have been accustomed to - and already for them there are emergent properties of critical thinking. I directly expressed that the next step must be an explicit application of critical thinking to the re-processing of the data.
Many people insist in indirectly demonstrating the dire need we have for large amounts of additional intelligence in the system. Already the automation of trivial corrections in debate has critical value. Some authors have pushed for this for decades...
[0] https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2026/09/two-separate-...
...Why would one?! ___We do not want to replicate humans___
> the need
Eh?! Who has what need? My need is to minimize the impact of liabilities.
> to demonstrate our level of thinking
Statement based on what?!
You seem to be just expressing your own ideas. We are not here for polling.
Our critical thinking is bounded to our needs. Machine needs nothing, so you have to give it a task. Yes, within limited scope a machine can look like it's thinking. Yes, scope is expanding. But it has this flaw and requires constant fine-tuning job that expands along with the scope.
About "to demonstrate our level of thinking" - that is my bad rephrasing of "garbage in, garbage out".
> We are not here for polling.
Please don’t push your agenda by framing it as the position of the majority.
But we pretty much have to be constructive (or would that be another "surprising agenda")?
> Our critical thinking is bounded to our needs
In which way? Proper critical thinking simply assesses truth. The machine, when spent the relevant, has the task to build a correct world model - just like people.
> garbage in, garbage out
And "critical thinking" is exactly that breaks the "garbage in, garbage out" problem.
> your agenda
That """agenda""" would be that recording "how do you feel about the matter" is completely useless (cpr. the "constructive" above). Anyone that defended that position would have no right of speaking about rudeness (because stopping people to show them an unrequested performative dance would not be consistent with the idea). (And why are you seemingly presenting "the majority" as having rights?)
I suggest you make efforts towards clarity (you may have promising ideas but how do we know?) and recognizing your assumptions (both as non-universal and as requiring explanations).