The debate on artificial intelligenceCan machines think? Or rather, can we develop true artificial intelligence, in the sense of machines that think and understand like we humans do? This is an interesting problem that is becoming more and more relevant in our lives as computers become more complex and integral to our lives. Two articles, "Minds, Brains, and Programs" by John Searle and "Robots and Minds" by William Lycan, present two different answers to this question and also raise several new questions. John Searle believes that at one level computers think - they manipulate symbols - but at another level they don't think - computers don't understand the symbols they are manipulating to mean something in the sense that we humans do. Lycan believes that yes, computers think, and that it is most likely only a matter of time before we can create a machine that not only looks and acts like a person, but also thinks like a person. Therefore, Lycan argues, the appropriately programmed machine of this complexity is as much a person as we are. I'm more on Lycan's side. Words like "intelligence" and "understanding" have variations in their definitions depending on who you ask. It is often difficult to find even a simple definition once you delve deeper into the issues at hand. But since we humans (particularly Searle) often try to separate ourselves from computers by saying that we understand the meaning of the symbols we manipulate, it is necessary for me to give a useful and accurate meaning to the words (or symbols) it will use. I define "thinking" as the processing of information, at any level of complexity. I include in the thinking category a thermostat that makes... means of paper... a human being whose body is almost entirely mechanical) are people? If we cannot distinguish their minds from those of normal human beings, then we have no basis to deny that they have the same fundamental rights. As for the second question, it is much more difficult and draws an analogy with animal rights, because even now computers display an intelligence that is more or less equal to that of many animals. However, since I have proven my main point and exceeded the page limit, I will now retreat. The area of ​​animal rights is still hotly debated and we often still disagree on many aspects of human rights. These areas are the subject of numerous documents, articles, news and even organizations. Perhaps, if only to avoid a repetition of our moral confusion over our sudden ability to clone complex biological organisms, we should begin to consider the question of “cyber rights” now. It still sounds strange to me.