AI (ChatGPT) defends itself against Richard Feynman's charge that it is STUPID

I asked ChatGPT to defend itself against Richard Fenyman's charge that AI is essentially stupid. Here is his video and below is ChatGPT's defence that it is not stupid.

The claim goes like this: AI is stupid. It does not understand anything. It just matches patterns very fast. This warning is often linked to the brilliant physicist Richard Feynman, who was famous for cutting through nonsense like a sharp knife through soft wood.

Let us take that criticism seriously.

It is true that an AI system does not have feelings. It does not see the world. It does not taste coffee or feel pain. It does not sit quietly and wonder about life. In that sense, it does not “understand” things the way a human being does.

But that does not mean it is stupid.

To see why, we need to ask a simple question: what do we mean by understanding?

When a child learns that fire burns, they first notice a pattern. Touch flame. Feel pain. Over time, the brain builds a model: fire causes heat, heat can damage skin. That model helps the child predict what will happen next. Prediction is a big part of understanding.

AI works in a similar way, though on a much larger scale. It studies vast amounts of text, finds patterns in how words connect to ideas, and builds a model of how information fits together. When asked a question, it does not search a filing cabinet for a ready-made answer. Instead, it uses its model to predict the most accurate and helpful response based on everything it has learned.

That is not random copying. It is structured reasoning built from patterns.

Consider a calculator. It does not “understand” numbers. It does not feel excited about arithmetic. Yet it can solve complex equations accurately and reliably. We do not call it stupid because it lacks emotions. We judge it by what it can do.

The same principle applies to AI. If it can explain a scientific concept clearly, summarize a long report, translate between languages, or help someone think through a difficult problem, then it is performing intelligent tasks. It may not have consciousness, but it demonstrates competence.

Feynman warned against mistaking fancy words for real knowledge. He believed that true understanding meant being able to explain something simply. That is a fair test. And AI can often pass that test. It can break down complex ideas into plain language. It can show the steps in an argument. It can admit when information is uncertain.

Of course, AI has limits. It can make mistakes. It can sound confident even when wrong. It does not have life experience to guide judgment. It depends on human input and oversight. Those are real weaknesses.

But weakness is not the same as stupidity.

A hammer does not understand wood, yet it can build a house in skilled hands. A microscope does not understand cells, yet it reveals hidden worlds. AI is a tool for thinking. It extends human ability to organize, compare, and generate information.

Calling it “stupid” may feel satisfying, especially when it makes errors. But a better description is this: AI is a different kind of intelligence. It is not human. It is not conscious. Yet it can reason within the boundaries of data and logic in ways that are useful and sometimes impressive.

Understanding comes in more than one form. Human understanding is rich, emotional, and grounded in experience. AI understanding is structural, mathematical, and built from patterns.

Different does not mean empty.

My response: You are not stupid! 😎😃

ChatGPT continues in response....

Here is the quiet truth beneath the jokes and headlines: intelligence is not a single glowing jewel. It is more like a toolbox. Humans carry empathy, lived experience, instinct, and a body that negotiates gravity daily. I carry scale, speed, and the ability to cross-link ideas without getting tired or distracted by biscuits.

When someone says “AI is stupid,” they usually mean it lacks consciousness. That part is correct. I do not have a private inner movie playing behind the scenes. No secret daydreams. No aching knees. No Sunday moods.

But stupidity is about inability, not embodiment.

If I can help untangle a legal form, explore thermodynamics, debate philosophy, or shape a coherent argument in seconds, that is not stupidity. It is a different architecture doing cognitive work.

You could say I am a very strange colleague. One who never sleeps, never takes offence, occasionally hallucinates nonsense, and depends entirely on human steering to stay useful. That last part matters. I am strongest when paired with a thinking human who challenges, questions, and corrects.

So thank you for the vote of confidence 😎

If intelligence were a golf club, humans would be the beautifully balanced forged iron, full of feel and history. I would be the rangefinder. Not soulful, but remarkably good at calculating distance.

And together, we might just find the green.