4 ms·

What do you mean the 'smart talk' is exactly what he said? That needs clarification and citation to be a meaningful statement. Inventing the chinese room argum

by nohat 8y ago

What do you mean the 'smart talk' is exactly what he said? That needs clarification and citation to be a meaningful statement. Inventing the chinese room argument is a point against taking him seriously. It's a very confused argument. The fact that it keeps being trotted out is sad more than anything (not that I'm saying you are doing that).

stcredzero 8y ago
What do you mean the 'smart talk' is exactly what he said? It's the idea that AI's achievements have to do with the automation and re-packaging of the output of human intelligence. That was one of the main points of his talk. (To his credit, that was from several years back.) Inventing the chinese room argument is a point against taking him seriously. From a technical point of view, it seems valid to dismiss it as an argument against AI. However, given that the science behind consciousness is incomplete, I'm not sure the entire idea has no merit. In a way, the Chinese Room scenario reveals something about our current cultural biases about what constitutes consciousness. For example, it can be taken as a gedankenexperiment showing we'd have a hard time overcoming our biases if we were confronted with a consciousness operating at a speed 6 orders of magnitude slower than our own. On what empirical basis can we dismiss our intuitions on the matter? How can we be so sure that the logic for our dismissing the argument isn't just a technocrat ideology?
- nohat 8y ago
  I get that was his claim, but saying that this is now accepted is just not true. Saying that it is 'smart talk' implies that smart people are talking about it? Saying that the value in the Chinese Room argument is in showing how we have difficulty overcoming our biases is a clever inversion, but more a funny debate tactic than serious defense of Searle. Unless you are claiming that Searle doesn't actually believe it and invented it as some sort of long con? I don't think using brain biology and logic over intuition needs to be defended.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    Saying that it is 'smart talk' implies that smart people are talking about it? I keep reading paraphrases of basically that idea in articles and blog posts. Another phrase which means the same thing refers to getting enough data, or declares that data is king. The latter often implies that what's happening is an automation and repackaging of human intelligence. Saying that the value in the Chinese Room argument is in showing how we have difficulty overcoming our biases is a clever inversion, more a funny debate tactic than serious defense of Searle. It's not even a funny debate tactic, if no one is actually defending the Chinese Room argument. In other words, there is a value in looking at why people are interested in the argument, despite the fact it fails. I don't think using brain biology and logic over intuition needs to be defended. The way that we apply science and logic in the context of our cultural understanding and human biases does need to be examined, however. History shows this quite clearly. I think it's very telling that instead of engaging in an analysis of the intuitions and biases which apply to human beings thinking about consciousness, you are merely interested in the dead-horse beating exhortation of the supremacy of arguments which have already been won. I think an examination of the above situation has tremendous value for people thinking seriously about AI's implications for future society. For example, there is a story about Murray Gell-Mann and how he flummoxed his grad students by being just slightly faster at getting to the next idea in conversations. One day, his grad students played a practical joke on him by enumerating all of the implications of a new line of thinking, ahead of time when he wasn't there, memorizing them, then blurting out the next idea when he met with them later. I also had a professor like that. He never thought things I never thought of, but he was always saying them just as I was formulating the idea, but before I could speak it. I think it's well worth it, to examine exactly what we mean when we think of someone being more or less intelligent. I suspect it will have important implications if and when we do develop a sentient AI.
    - nohat 8y ago
      > Another phrase which means the same thing refers to getting enough data, or declares that data is king. The latter often implies that what's happening is an automation and repackaging of human intelligence. I think you are either misinterpreting the common usage of 'data is king' or your meaning of 'repackaging of human intelligence' is much different than mine. AI research (and even generally machine learning) is very interested in the degree to which models can generalize. It's core to the entire endeavour, and saying that AI is just 'repackaging human intelligence' is missing the point. For one thing it apparently entirely ignores unsupervised learning. > It's not even a funny debate tactic, if no one is actually defending the Chinese Room argument. If you agree with me regarding the confused nature of the chinese room argument (as stated, not as a complicated meta psychology observation), then I rest my case regarding questioning Searle's understanding of AI given his continued advancement of the argument. > I think it's very telling that instead of engaging in an analysis of the intuitions and biases which apply to human beings thinking about consciousness, you are merely interested in the dead-horse beating exhortation of the supremacy of arguments which have already been won. I'm merely keeping on topic. The psychology of biases in people approaching the Chinese Room is not on topic, no matter how fascinating. I think that it's more telling that instead of simply resolving the actual argument you tried to change topics and then implied that a refusal to follow was some sort of failing. The Chinese room ought to be dead, but it keeps on being brought up (and not by its detractors, or as a clever psychology experiment). Since you really want to discuss the psychology of our intuitions regarding consciousness: Firstly consciousness is actually tough to study and understand. Our understanding is also biased by our sense of personal identity and religious and cultural conflation of consciousness with the soul. On top of that confusion people don't easily think of the world materialistically. It's unintuitive, and slightly disturbing to think that our consciousness is created by a bunch of neurons connected together. Given that its a simple matter of constructing a thought experiment that hides the thinking part from view to make a (apparently) convincing sounding argument against something merely mechanical from having consciousness. It's just an anecdote, but I have noticed technical people immediately dislike the chinese room argument, while non technical people don't have a problem with it (tbf less agreement than 'huh, good point'). I suspect that engineers and scientists have more experience with the nitty gritty ruthlessness of physics, and are thus less likely to trust their intuition over the science (or at least have formed more physically based intuitions). They also are more used to criticizing each step in an argument instead of taking it as a whole, having learned that engines and computer programs don't run when you elide a critical step. There's also a certain cultural expectation concurrent to this that (rightly) criticizes spiritual/intuitional/supernatural beliefs like souls.

by nohat 8y ago

stcredzero 8y ago

What do you mean the 'smart talk' is exactly what he said? It's the idea that AI's achievements have to do with the automation and re-packaging of the output of human intelligence. That was one of the main points of his talk. (To his credit, that was from several years back.) Inventing the chinese room argument is a point against taking him seriously. From a technical point of view, it seems valid to dismiss it as an argument against AI. However, given that the science behind consciousness is incomplete, I'm not sure the entire idea has no merit. In a way, the Chinese Room scenario reveals something about our current cultural biases about what constitutes consciousness. For example, it can be taken as a gedankenexperiment showing we'd have a hard time overcoming our biases if we were confronted with a consciousness operating at a speed 6 orders of magnitude slower than our own. On what empirical basis can we dismiss our intuitions on the matter? How can we be so sure that the logic for our dismissing the argument isn't just a technocrat ideology?

nohat 8y ago
I get that was his claim, but saying that this is now accepted is just not true. Saying that it is 'smart talk' implies that smart people are talking about it? Saying that the value in the Chinese Room argument is in showing how we have difficulty overcoming our biases is a clever inversion, but more a funny debate tactic than serious defense of Searle. Unless you are claiming that Searle doesn't actually believe it and invented it as some sort of long con? I don't think using brain biology and logic over intuition needs to be defended.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Saying that it is 'smart talk' implies that smart people are talking about it? I keep reading paraphrases of basically that idea in articles and blog posts. Another phrase which means the same thing refers to getting enough data, or declares that data is king. The latter often implies that what's happening is an automation and repackaging of human intelligence. Saying that the value in the Chinese Room argument is in showing how we have difficulty overcoming our biases is a clever inversion, more a funny debate tactic than serious defense of Searle. It's not even a funny debate tactic, if no one is actually defending the Chinese Room argument. In other words, there is a value in looking at why people are interested in the argument, despite the fact it fails. I don't think using brain biology and logic over intuition needs to be defended. The way that we apply science and logic in the context of our cultural understanding and human biases does need to be examined, however. History shows this quite clearly. I think it's very telling that instead of engaging in an analysis of the intuitions and biases which apply to human beings thinking about consciousness, you are merely interested in the dead-horse beating exhortation of the supremacy of arguments which have already been won. I think an examination of the above situation has tremendous value for people thinking seriously about AI's implications for future society. For example, there is a story about Murray Gell-Mann and how he flummoxed his grad students by being just slightly faster at getting to the next idea in conversations. One day, his grad students played a practical joke on him by enumerating all of the implications of a new line of thinking, ahead of time when he wasn't there, memorizing them, then blurting out the next idea when he met with them later. I also had a professor like that. He never thought things I never thought of, but he was always saying them just as I was formulating the idea, but before I could speak it. I think it's well worth it, to examine exactly what we mean when we think of someone being more or less intelligent. I suspect it will have important implications if and when we do develop a sentient AI.
  - nohat 8y ago
    > Another phrase which means the same thing refers to getting enough data, or declares that data is king. The latter often implies that what's happening is an automation and repackaging of human intelligence. I think you are either misinterpreting the common usage of 'data is king' or your meaning of 'repackaging of human intelligence' is much different than mine. AI research (and even generally machine learning) is very interested in the degree to which models can generalize. It's core to the entire endeavour, and saying that AI is just 'repackaging human intelligence' is missing the point. For one thing it apparently entirely ignores unsupervised learning. > It's not even a funny debate tactic, if no one is actually defending the Chinese Room argument. If you agree with me regarding the confused nature of the chinese room argument (as stated, not as a complicated meta psychology observation), then I rest my case regarding questioning Searle's understanding of AI given his continued advancement of the argument. > I think it's very telling that instead of engaging in an analysis of the intuitions and biases which apply to human beings thinking about consciousness, you are merely interested in the dead-horse beating exhortation of the supremacy of arguments which have already been won. I'm merely keeping on topic. The psychology of biases in people approaching the Chinese Room is not on topic, no matter how fascinating. I think that it's more telling that instead of simply resolving the actual argument you tried to change topics and then implied that a refusal to follow was some sort of failing. The Chinese room ought to be dead, but it keeps on being brought up (and not by its detractors, or as a clever psychology experiment). Since you really want to discuss the psychology of our intuitions regarding consciousness: Firstly consciousness is actually tough to study and understand. Our understanding is also biased by our sense of personal identity and religious and cultural conflation of consciousness with the soul. On top of that confusion people don't easily think of the world materialistically. It's unintuitive, and slightly disturbing to think that our consciousness is created by a bunch of neurons connected together. Given that its a simple matter of constructing a thought experiment that hides the thinking part from view to make a (apparently) convincing sounding argument against something merely mechanical from having consciousness. It's just an anecdote, but I have noticed technical people immediately dislike the chinese room argument, while non technical people don't have a problem with it (tbf less agreement than 'huh, good point'). I suspect that engineers and scientists have more experience with the nitty gritty ruthlessness of physics, and are thus less likely to trust their intuition over the science (or at least have formed more physically based intuitions). They also are more used to criticizing each step in an argument instead of taking it as a whole, having learned that engines and computer programs don't run when you elide a critical step. There's also a certain cultural expectation concurrent to this that (rightly) criticizes spiritual/intuitional/supernatural beliefs like souls.