Cited by 62Cybernetics and Technology in SocietyPhilosophy and Theoretical ScienceEthics and Social Impacts of AI

Can a machine think (anything new)? Automation beyond simulation

Open access
Fazi, M. Beatrice·2019·AI & SOCIETY

Abstract

This article will rework the classical question ‘Can a machine think?’ into a more specific problem: ‘Can a machine think anything new?’ It will consider traditional computational tasks such as prediction and decision-making, so as to investigate whether the instrumentality of these operations can be understood in terms of the creation of novel thought. By addressing philosophical and technoscientific attempts to mechanise thought on the one hand (e.g. Leibniz’s mathesis universalis and Turing’s algorithmic method of computation), and the philosophical and cultural critique of these attempts on the other, I will argue that computation’s epistemic productions should be assessed vis-à-vis the logico-mathematical specificity of formal axiomatic systems. Such an assessment requires us to conceive automated modes of thought in such a way as to supersede the hope that machines might replicate human cognitive faculties, and to thereby acknowledge a form of onto-epistemological autonomy in automated ‘thinking’ processes. This involves moving beyond the view that machines might merely simulate humans. Machine thought should be seen as dramatically alien to human thought, and to the dimension of lived experience upon which the latter is predicated. Having stepped outside the simulative paradigm, the question ‘Can a machine think anything new?’ can then be reformulated. One should ask whether novel behaviour in computing might come not from the breaking of mechanical rules, but from following them: from doing what computers do already, and not what we might think they should be doing if we wanted them to imitate us.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00146-018-0821-0

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • LLMs play a sort of imitation game, without a focus on computational novelty.

    “LLMs still play a sort of imitation game , without a focus on (computational) novelty (Fazi, 2019).”

    From On the creativity of large language models (2025) · cites this paper as Fazi, 2019

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 51 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Aron J (2016) AI is going for go. New Sci 229(3058):6
  2. Frey CB, Osborne MA (2013) The future of employment: how sus- ceptible are jobs to computerisation? Oxford Martin School, Oxford. http://www.oxfor dmart in.ox.ac.uk/downl oads/acade mic/The_Futur e_of_Emplo yment .pdf. Accessed 12 Jan 2017
  3. McCarthy J, Minsky ML, Rochester N, Shannon CE (2006) A proposal for the Dartmouth summer research project on artificial intelli- gence. AI Magazine 27(3):12-14
  4. Moor J (2006) The Dartmouth college artificial intelligence conference: the next fifty years. AI Magazine 27(4):87-91
  5. Morris R (ed) (1997) Kasparov vs. Big Blue: the significance for artifi- cial intelligence. Papers for the 1997 AAAI Workshop. Technical Report WS-97-04. AAAI Press, Menlo Park CA 1
  6. Weber M (1978) Economy and society: an outline of interpretive soci- ology. Volume I. Translated by E Fischoff and others. University of California Press, Berkley

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fazi, M. B.
Affiliations
University of Sussex (GB)
Corresponding author
Fazi, M. Beatrice
Venue
AI & SOCIETY
Published
2018-02-12
Volume
34
Issue
4
Pages
813-824
ISSN
  • 0951-5666 (ISSN-L)
  • 1435-5655
OpenAlex
W2790258664
Cited by
62
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 1
FWCI
15.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • AI & Society (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Sussex Research Online (University of Sussex) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Cybernetics and Technology in Society
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
automation, prediction, decision-making, Leibniz, mathesis universalis, Turing, computation, axiomatic systems, epistemic autonomy, simulation, human cognition, lived experience, onto-epistemology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review