5 ms·

I think all AIs in my lifetime will simply be Chinese Rooms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

by anon987 10y ago

gwern 10y ago
The Chinese room argument is irrelevant here.
- kayimbo 10y ago
  is it? It seemed to me like author assumes AI decision making will be roughly equivalent to biological decision making, just faster. I thought one of the Chinese room arguments is that biological decisions will always be "different" than AI ones. Also it seemed like the author assumes great technological advances in AIs, but not in biology. If we're gonna dream shit up why not dream that brains in the future will be 10,000 times as dense and computers won't be able to keep up except as tools.
  - gwern 10y ago
    The point of the Chinese room argument is that while the room receives and emits Chinese just like any Chinaman, it isn't conscious. As the WP article makes clear, the assumption is that the Chinese room is just as competent at emitting Chinese: "Suppose, says Searle, that this computer performs its task so convincingly that it comfortably passes the Turing test: it convinces a human Chinese speaker that the program is itself a live Chinese speaker. To all of the questions that the person asks, it makes appropriate responses, such that any Chinese speaker would be convinced that they are talking to another Chinese-speaking human being." > If we're gonna dream shit up why not dream that brains in the future will be 10,000 times as dense Because... that is not a thing which is happening. And deep learning and AI progress are things that are happening. (Quite aside from the many issues with your proposal, like a brain 10kx as powerful due to 10kx density would probably break thermodynamic limits on computation and of course cook itself to death within seconds.)
    - kayimbo 10y ago
      whats not a thing thats actually happening? Drugs and other procedures that increase synaptic/neural density are indeed happening. Like i mentioned, i don't know all the AI terminology but isn't there an unresolved argument that ai architecture in the short run can't mimic biological decision making, and so the decisions will always be different/ tasks for which tool AI will be better to help the biological decision making processes?
  - kobeya 10y ago
    No, the Chinese room takes as an assumption that the input and output of the room is the same as someone who "actually understands" Chinese. In other words, it assumes that biological decisions will always be the same as the AI's decision.
Symmetry 10y ago
The question of whether or not AlphaGo is 'really' intelligent is irrelevant to whether it can beat me at chess. The question of whether or not the Pentagon's integrated AI system is really intelligent is similarly irrelevant to whether or not it might undertake a program of action it's creators would object to if they understood what it meant.
arctangent 10y ago
Or perhaps philosophical zombies? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie
kobeya 10y ago
You are a Chinese room too.
- KellhusSmellhus 10y ago
  Is this what they call anatta?
  - kobeya 10y ago
    That would be my interpretation, yes. To be fair Searle would say that it proves the opposite, but his argument isn't much more than "isn't that crazy?!" (Ok that wasn't very fair.)
  - AlexCoventry 10y ago
    It depends who they are. (Ha ha.) That's one perspective on anatta, but not a particularly useful one. You may find this interesting: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/selvesnotself.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/selves... If you've ever taken an introductory course on Buddhism, you've probably heard this question: "If there is no self, who does the kamma, who receives the results of kamma?" This understanding turns the teaching on not-self into a teaching on no self, and then takes no self as the framework and the teaching on kamma as something that doesn't fit in the framework. But in the way the Buddha taught these topics, the teaching on kamma is the framework and the teaching of not-self fits into that framework as a type of action. In other words, assuming that there really are skillful and unskillful actions, what kind of action is the perception of self? What kind of action is the perception of not-self?
snowwrestler 10y ago
I think we will discover that our own consciousness works like the Chinese Room, and acknowledging and internalizing that will cause tremendous unrest between philosophers, computer scientists, neurologists, and other academic disciplines--potentially even including the law.

I think all AIs in my lifetime will simply be Chinese Rooms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

by anon987 10y ago

I think all AIs in my lifetime will simply be Chinese Rooms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

gwern 10y ago

The Chinese room argument is irrelevant here.

kayimbo 10y ago
is it? It seemed to me like author assumes AI decision making will be roughly equivalent to biological decision making, just faster. I thought one of the Chinese room arguments is that biological decisions will always be "different" than AI ones. Also it seemed like the author assumes great technological advances in AIs, but not in biology. If we're gonna dream shit up why not dream that brains in the future will be 10,000 times as dense and computers won't be able to keep up except as tools.
- gwern 10y ago
  The point of the Chinese room argument is that while the room receives and emits Chinese just like any Chinaman, it isn't conscious. As the WP article makes clear, the assumption is that the Chinese room is just as competent at emitting Chinese: "Suppose, says Searle, that this computer performs its task so convincingly that it comfortably passes the Turing test: it convinces a human Chinese speaker that the program is itself a live Chinese speaker. To all of the questions that the person asks, it makes appropriate responses, such that any Chinese speaker would be convinced that they are talking to another Chinese-speaking human being." > If we're gonna dream shit up why not dream that brains in the future will be 10,000 times as dense Because... that is not a thing which is happening. And deep learning and AI progress are things that are happening. (Quite aside from the many issues with your proposal, like a brain 10kx as powerful due to 10kx density would probably break thermodynamic limits on computation and of course cook itself to death within seconds.)
  - kayimbo 10y ago
    whats not a thing thats actually happening? Drugs and other procedures that increase synaptic/neural density are indeed happening. Like i mentioned, i don't know all the AI terminology but isn't there an unresolved argument that ai architecture in the short run can't mimic biological decision making, and so the decisions will always be different/ tasks for which tool AI will be better to help the biological decision making processes?
- kobeya 10y ago
  No, the Chinese room takes as an assumption that the input and output of the room is the same as someone who "actually understands" Chinese. In other words, it assumes that biological decisions will always be the same as the AI's decision.

Symmetry 10y ago

The question of whether or not AlphaGo is 'really' intelligent is irrelevant to whether it can beat me at chess. The question of whether or not the Pentagon's integrated AI system is really intelligent is similarly irrelevant to whether or not it might undertake a program of action it's creators would object to if they understood what it meant.

arctangent 10y ago

Or perhaps philosophical zombies? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie

kobeya 10y ago

You are a Chinese room too.

KellhusSmellhus 10y ago
Is this what they call anatta?
- kobeya 10y ago
  That would be my interpretation, yes. To be fair Searle would say that it proves the opposite, but his argument isn't much more than "isn't that crazy?!" (Ok that wasn't very fair.)
- AlexCoventry 10y ago
  It depends who they are. (Ha ha.) That's one perspective on anatta, but not a particularly useful one. You may find this interesting: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/selvesnotself.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/selves... If you've ever taken an introductory course on Buddhism, you've probably heard this question: "If there is no self, who does the kamma, who receives the results of kamma?" This understanding turns the teaching on not-self into a teaching on no self, and then takes no self as the framework and the teaching on kamma as something that doesn't fit in the framework. But in the way the Buddha taught these topics, the teaching on kamma is the framework and the teaching of not-self fits into that framework as a type of action. In other words, assuming that there really are skillful and unskillful actions, what kind of action is the perception of self? What kind of action is the perception of not-self?

snowwrestler 10y ago

I think we will discover that our own consciousness works like the Chinese Room, and acknowledging and internalizing that will cause tremendous unrest between philosophers, computer scientists, neurologists, and other academic disciplines--potentially even including the law.