3 ms·
This work does not engage with Searle’s Chinese Room argument, as far as I can tell, nor do the authors use any shockingly novel network architecture or advance
by hprotagonist 8y ago
This work does not engage with Searle’s Chinese Room argument, as far as I can tell, nor do the authors use any shockingly novel network architecture or advances in approach beyond normal DL approaches.
My position, then, is that the system they describe cannot be said to be reasoning at all.
- bhouston 8y agoDefine reasoning? Technically in some definitions of reasoning, such as symbolic logic solvers that already exist, those are logical reasoning optimization tools.
- SCHiM 8y agoI think I've never completely understood the Chinese room argument, to me it seems like that whole chain of examples and counter examples are the product of people playing word games and discussing definitions. If your 'room' 'understands', but no part of the 'room' can be attributed with having 'intelligence', doesn't it stand to reason that the _room_ itself is the intelligent actor? I really don't see the problem with the fact that the human 'cpu' doesn't speak Chinese, the room itself 'understands' Chinese just fine.
- mindcrime 8y agoA lot of people consider Searles' argument to have been refuted quite some time ago. At the very least, I don't see that it deserves any particular status w/r/t determining what is or isn't reasoning.