Artificial intelligence meets natural stupidity
Abstract
As a field, artificial intelligence has always been on the border of respectability, and therefore on the border of crackpottery. Many critics , have urged that we are over the border. We have been very defensive toward this charge, drawing ourselves up with dignity when it is made and folding the cloak of Science about us. On the other hand, in private, we have been justifiably proud of our willingness to explore weird ideas, because pursuing them is the only way to make progress.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The trend of overinterpreting computational technology has been present in discourse for decades and manifested in attribution of human-like qualities to ELIZA and anthropomorphisation of language used to describe AI algorithms.
“This trend has been present in the discourse for decades and has manifested itself in, for example, in the attribution of human-like qualities to the simple chatbot ELIZA (Weizenbaum, 1966;Berry, 2023) or in the anthropomorphisation of the language used to describe AI algorithms, which McDermott (1976) warned against half a century ago, and which remains problematic today (Shwartz, 2020).”
From There is no such thing as conscious artificial intelligence (2025) · cites this paper as McDermott, 1976
Purely hopeful expectations have previously been a problem in AI research.
“One should bear in mind that purely hopeful expectations have previously been a problem in AI research (McDermott 1976).”
From The ethics of artificial intelligence (2014) · cites this paper as McDermott 1976
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Harnad, S. (1990) · Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena · doi:10.1016/0167-2789(90)90087-6 · Cited by 4,235 · see citing works
“One well-known (though misdiagnosed) manifestation of it is the so-called "frame" problem [22] [24] [26] [34]: It is a frustrating but familiar experience in writing "knowledge-based" programs that a system apparently behaving perfectly intelligently for a while can be foiled by an unexpected case…”
The ethics of artificial intelligence
Bostrom, N., & Yudkowsky, E. (2014) · The Cambridge Handbook of Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139046855.020 · Cited by 918 · see citing works
Salles, A., Evers, K., & Farisco, M. (2020) · AJOB Neuroscience · doi:10.1080/21507740.2020.1740350 · Cited by 335 · see citing works
Approaches to studying formal and everyday reasoning.
Galotti, K. M. (1989) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.331 · Cited by 322 · see citing works
Lipton, Z. C., & Steinhardt, J. (2019) · Queue · doi:10.1145/3317287.3328534 · Cited by 231 · see citing works
McIntosh, T. R., Susnjak, T., Liu, T., Watters, P., Xu, D., Liu, D., & Halgamuge, M. N. (2025) · Technologies · doi:10.3390/technologies13020051 · Cited by 102 · see citing works
“T HE historical context of AI, tracing back to Alan Turing’s “Imitation Game” [1], early computational theories [2], [3], and the development of the first neural networks and machine learning [4], [5], [6], has set the foundation for today’s advanced models.”
BackgroundPsychotherapy and Artificial Intelligence: A Proposal for Alignment
de Mello, F. L., & de Souza, S. A. (2019) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00263 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
Bin Akhtar, Z. (2024) · Computing and artificial intelligence. · doi:10.59400/cai.v2i1.1378 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
There is no such thing as conscious artificial intelligence
Porębski, A., & Figura, J. (2025) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-025-05868-8 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
“…in the attribution of human-like qualities to the simple chatbot ELIZA (Weizenbaum, 1966; Berry, 2023) or in the anthropomorphisation of the language used to describe AI algorithms, which McDermott (1976) warned against half a century ago, and which remains problematic today (Shwartz, 2020).”
Dennett's realisation theory of the relation between folk and scientific psychology
Cussins, A. (1988) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00058659 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
- Authors
- McDermott, D.
- Affiliations
- Cambridge, Mass
- Corresponding author
- McDermott, Drew
- Venue
- ACM SIGART Bulletin
- Published
- 1976-04
- Issue
- 57
- Pages
- 4-9
- ISSN
- 0163-5719 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2009677406
- Cited by
- 323
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 6.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- ACM SIGART Bulletin (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Cybernetics and Technology in Society
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Keywords
- artificial intelligence, respectability, scientific credibility, public perception of AI
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
