Granted — and not only that, but even a sea cucumber or a jellyfish.

 So basically, artificial intelligence is a kind of man-made starfish? So that’s it — I still don’t understand how this is possible.

 If I understood correctly, there actually isn’t any explanation or understanding of the astonishing answering abilities of artificial intelligence, because what does it mean that they “learn”? Again — how can an inanimate thing learn? How can we teach an inanimate thing? It sounds like something in the category of a human being. How does it manage to phrase for me a correct answer syntactically, and not just a jumble of letters, and also correct in terms of content, on millions of topics?
How can it infer one thing from another? How does it answer so fittingly? Of course it’s full of mistakes and falsehoods, but in the way of a lying and mistaken human being; its errors have a human form.

There are good explanations, and we know exactly how it works and what’s in it. There is no doubt about this at all. What is surprising here is that models like these, which we understand completely, reach such great achievements. But there is nothing unclear or mystical there. It is an entirely ordinary machine. The question of how it learns is a question asked by someone who doesn’t know the material. Someone who does know it understands exactly how it learns. There is nothing unclear here.

First of all, thank you for calming me down.
And where can one see an explanation of this? Did you write something about it?

I have a series of columns on artificial intelligence, 694–699. There’s an initial and general explanation there.

I read them once, and if I remember correctly it says there too that there are things in AI that are unclear, but I’ll read it there again.

In the meantime, a halakhic question: from the standpoint of Jewish law, what is the status of a creature that has no brain and no heart, such as a starfish, sea cucumber, jellyfish, etc.? Why shouldn’t it be considered a plant and be permitted for eating?

Practical difference: suppose there is a tiny insect with a brain and heart that right now I can see only under a microscope, or any other discovery where it is clear to me that it is here — even so, it would be forbidden for me to bring it to my mouth and eat it now, because right now I see it or know of it clearly. But bacteria (which have no brain) — even if I can see them under a microscope and gather them onto a pill — would it be permitted for me to swallow them into my mouth?

Forgive me, but where are you getting these foolish questions from?

Reasoning — why should a creature without a brain and heart, without any consciousness or experiences of pain or hunger and the like, be considered a fish and not be considered a plant?

And regarding the second question about bacteria and tiny insects — do you disagree halakhically?

Do you know whether large animals have such experiences? I don’t, and in my opinion no one does. There is a biological distinction between a plant and an animal, and that is what they rely on.

A — then at least regarding coral and the like, which are attached to the ground:

The verse itself in I Kings chapter 10, verse 13 says, “almug trees” — meaning the Torah treats coral as a plant.
And it is explicit
in Maimonides’ Commentary on the Mishnah, Kelim 13:8, brought by Rabbi Ovadiah of Bertinoro:
“Almog — called coral in the vernacular, and it grows in the depths of the sea; at first it is soft before the air hardens it, and one engraves a seal in it. And in Scripture: ‘almug trees.’”

And so it is ruled in practice in the Mishnah there that its law is like wood:
“Wood that serves metal is susceptible to impurity, but metal that serves wood is pure. How so? A wooden key with even one metal tooth is susceptible to impurity. A metal key with a wooden tooth is pure. A metal ring with a seal of coral is susceptible to impurity. A coral ring with a metal seal is pure.”

B — regarding lice, perhaps one can understand the Talmudic ruling that it is permitted to kill lice on the Sabbath, and even though the reason given there is not correct, still perhaps they had a tradition that lice are permitted and did not know why (Rabbi Dessler claims that the halakha is traditional and the reason is an attempt by the amoraim), and perhaps this is because it is not considered alive, at least regarding the Sabbath, if not regarding kashrut?

C — regarding my discussion of bacteria and tiny insects, do you agree? If not, why not?

Actually, let’s focus the question more:
If the Torah regarded it as wood — the “coral” — what do we do in such a case if science has determined that it is alive?
Of course the halakhic practical difference is whether it would be permitted for eating.
And this is easier than a starfish, because coral is attached to the ground and dies when detached.

And by the way, I wanted to say that perhaps the Torah perspective is that anything that has no brain (and heart) is not in the category of a living being, because who is it? And although biologically that may be debatable, still for the halakhic category it would be considered not alive. And here the practical difference would not be for eating, because in any case it still moves and is not attached to the ground, so it is some kind of animal. So with lice and any living creature without a brain and heart, the practical difference would only be regarding taking life, since taking life from a creature that has no brain and heart is not considered killing — because whom did you kill?