Computational Power Without Cognitive Maps: Hardware-Theory Tensions

Modern AI effectiveness stems from hardware enabling calculations, not understanding cognition. This creates persistent tension: systems process information rapidly without comprehending cognitive processes they simulate.

Calculation-Comprehension Divide

Hardware as Enabler

"The problem wasn't hardware capability. You cannot simulate processes you don't understand"¹. Faster processors matter. Don't substitute theory.

Dartmouth researchers "predicted thinking machines in one generation. They were wrong"². Assumed hardware was bottleneck. "Biggest problem was we don't understand how mind works"³.

Organizations struggle adapting to security challenges⁴. Limitation isn't speed—it's architecture. Educational systems reproduce biases⁵ because processes remain unexamined. Development transformed⁶, yet converting capabilities poses challenges⁷.

Effective Without Understanding

"AI is somewhat effective because hardware became powerful enough"⁸. Somewhat effective. Not revolutionary. Effective within computational boundaries.

Young people consult chatbots for support⁹, seeking privacy. Systems lack empathy—process patterns without comprehending emotions. Russian officials expressed frustration¹⁰ with verification processes.

HarmonyOS optimizes rendering and latency¹¹. Technical improvements without breakthroughs. Semantic models track meaning¹², achieving classification. Pattern matching at scale, not cognitive understanding. Agentic systems execute autonomously¹³—impressive computationally, limited theoretically.

Development Strategy

Regional Approaches

Indonesia developed minMAX paradigm for localized implementation¹⁴, recognizing universal solutions ignore culture. Russia targets deployment by 2030¹⁵. Ambitious timelines echo Dartmouth if theory lags.

Putin called for global cooperation¹⁶, acknowledging isolated efforts miss potential. ASEAN emphasized adapting methods¹⁷. Regional strategies demonstrate awareness hardware requires contextual frameworks.

Chemical engineers debate threats versus assistance¹⁸. Answer depends on workflow understanding. Educational institutions maintain integrity¹⁹, recognizing technology serves objectives.

Cognitive Dependencies

Students showing reduced critical thinking with AI prompts²⁰ illustrate dependency risks. Instant answers decrease complex reasoning. Indonesian observers noted cognitive laziness²¹ when consistently requesting responses.

OpenAI preparedness addresses abuse requiring understanding²². Cybersecurity, mental health, misuse—all demand frameworks hardware cannot provide. Motion analysis expands performance understanding²³, yet interpretation requires expertise.

Pope highlighted dignity challenges²⁴. Philosophical questions hardware cannot resolve. Educators stress building mindsets²⁵. Responsible educational AI needs intentional design²⁶. "You cannot simulate processes you don't understand"²⁷ regardless of advances. Hardware enabled effectiveness. Theory determines sustainability. Dartmouth confused enablement with solution. Modern development maintains distinction between calculation capacity and cognitive understanding.

Daftar Pustaka