Added an AI understanding argument.

Arguments/AR-12934—AIs_Are_Capable_of_Understanding

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+Claim: 
+
+AI's are capable of understanding.
+
+Argument Style: 
+
+Deductive. This style of argument uses a series of building claims that lead to a conclusion, and the only way to dispute the conclusion is to find a problem with one or more of its supporting claims. In short, if you can't find a flaw in the logic, you have to accept the conclusion.
+
+Argument: 
+
+1. When humans debate whether or not AIs have understanding, we should frame the discussion around practical impact to society, not academic nuance.
+2. The question that most affects this is AI's potential ability replace, compete with, and otherwise disrupt human work.
+3. I define Functional Understanding as the ability for a system to evaluate a problem, find patterns between the problem and the concepts in its knowledge base, and produce a useful output based on that comparison.
+4. Both humans and AIs have Functional Understanding.
+5. Much of the objection to AIs being able to "truly understand" comes from people—either consciously or unconsciously—using a different definition for understanding, which I call Experiential Understanding. This type of understanding is the sensation of "getting" something, and it requires self-awareness and therefore consciousness.
+6. AIs (as of 2024) do not have Experiential Understanding because they are not conscious.
+7. Returning to the point of practical impact on society, AIs do not need Experiential Understanding to be useful in society, and therefore they don't need it to disrupt human work.
+8. Therefore, AIs are capable of understanding in the way that matters to us as humans.