5 ms·

The Chinese Room is a reductio against Strong AI. Strong AI is the idea that a program that programme that is able, for example, to converse in Chinese thereby

The Chinese Room is a reductio against Strong AI. Strong AI is the idea that a program that programme that is able, for example, to converse in Chinese thereby understands Chinese. The Room, if successful, drives a wedge between "acting as if one knows Chinese" and "understanding Chinese". This may be applied to the any number of programs. But with such a wedge, we do not actually have Strong AI—the appearance of intelligence (grounded in syntax) is different from actual intelligence (presumably grounded in semantics). In other words, assume strong AI. Strong AI implies machines have understanding. But the Chinese Room argues machines can never have understanding. So, strong AI is not possible. In the background is Turing's attempt to provide an account of intelligence. Turing skirts the issue in his famous paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence"[1]: instead of defining intelligence, Turing proposes a test. But the Chinese Room argues that even if we had a machine pass this test, we would not thereby be bound to say that the machine was intelligent. [1] https://www.csee.umbc.edu/courses/471/papers/turing.pdf https://www.csee.umbc.edu/courses/471/papers/turing.pdf

joefourier 8y ago
Why would the room being successful reveal anything useful? Why does it matter if a program is executed on pencil and paper or electronically? The thought experiment does not bring any novel insights and just misdirects the reader by focusing on the human. You could execute the Strong AI program on any Turing complete system. Asking if the human understands Chinese is just as absurd as asking if a universal Turing machine understands Chinese given the same program. The machine just follows the instructions given, the philosophical questions reside entirely on the side of the program and the execution of it.
- curious_yogurt 8y ago
  I think you have put your finger on exactly what is at issue: it does not matter whether the program is pencil or paper or electronically. It's an analogy. The point is that we do not (says Searle) impute understanding to the person in the room, therefore we should not impute understanding to a computer running a program. But Strong AI requires us to impute understanding; and this is exactly what is impossible. Therefore Strong AI does not exist. I take that to be the force of the argument.
Retric 8y ago
You have presupposed the answer. Replace a book with a person in that example and have the human walk up to the person and ask a question. Now in that case would saying the person moving the note does not understand something mean the room does not contain something that does understand? Nope. Therefore, saying the human in the original example does not understand something does not in fact answer your question. My lungs don’t speak English, but I can’t speak English without them.
- curious_yogurt 8y ago
  I do not believe I have presupposed the answer; I have simply articulated how I believe the reductio to work. The key, of course, is whether we think that the person in the Room actually understands Chinese. The inference Searle wants us to draw, based on our intuition, is that the person does not understand Chinese just because the person is following a lookup table. The way to get around the argument is to claim either (i) that the inference doesn't work—that is, Strong AI does not imply machines understand, or (ii) that the Chinese Room does not imply machines do not understand. I think (i) is a reasonable claim that follows from understanding what is intended by the term "Strong AI." (ii) is the tricky one. It seems to me the best route out is to find a way to substantiate a claim alluded to by another commentator, viz. the property of intelligence does not exist (though I would say "understanding does not apply" or something like that). The thing is, it does seem to me that understanding is a reasonable category for this case; and anyone who thinks this is likely to feel the force of the argument.
  - Retric 8y ago
    > The key, of course, is whether we think that the person in the Room actually understands Chinese. As I said that’s no more relevant than if the paint on the walls understands Chinease. You can’t answer the question of if the room understands something by saying if a single element understands something or not. Or consider this, does Microsoft the company understand French? It seems like a simple question, but you can easily support yes or no. In some situations it can respond to a French speaker, but not all situations.

joefourier 8y ago

Why would the room being successful reveal anything useful? Why does it matter if a program is executed on pencil and paper or electronically? The thought experiment does not bring any novel insights and just misdirects the reader by focusing on the human. You could execute the Strong AI program on any Turing complete system. Asking if the human understands Chinese is just as absurd as asking if a universal Turing machine understands Chinese given the same program. The machine just follows the instructions given, the philosophical questions reside entirely on the side of the program and the execution of it.

curious_yogurt 8y ago
I think you have put your finger on exactly what is at issue: it does not matter whether the program is pencil or paper or electronically. It's an analogy. The point is that we do not (says Searle) impute understanding to the person in the room, therefore we should not impute understanding to a computer running a program. But Strong AI requires us to impute understanding; and this is exactly what is impossible. Therefore Strong AI does not exist. I take that to be the force of the argument.

Retric 8y ago

You have presupposed the answer. Replace a book with a person in that example and have the human walk up to the person and ask a question. Now in that case would saying the person moving the note does not understand something mean the room does not contain something that does understand? Nope. Therefore, saying the human in the original example does not understand something does not in fact answer your question. My lungs don’t speak English, but I can’t speak English without them.

curious_yogurt 8y ago
I do not believe I have presupposed the answer; I have simply articulated how I believe the reductio to work. The key, of course, is whether we think that the person in the Room actually understands Chinese. The inference Searle wants us to draw, based on our intuition, is that the person does not understand Chinese just because the person is following a lookup table. The way to get around the argument is to claim either (i) that the inference doesn't work—that is, Strong AI does not imply machines understand, or (ii) that the Chinese Room does not imply machines do not understand. I think (i) is a reasonable claim that follows from understanding what is intended by the term "Strong AI." (ii) is the tricky one. It seems to me the best route out is to find a way to substantiate a claim alluded to by another commentator, viz. the property of intelligence does not exist (though I would say "understanding does not apply" or something like that). The thing is, it does seem to me that understanding is a reasonable category for this case; and anyone who thinks this is likely to feel the force of the argument.
- Retric 8y ago
  > The key, of course, is whether we think that the person in the Room actually understands Chinese. As I said that’s no more relevant than if the paint on the walls understands Chinease. You can’t answer the question of if the room understands something by saying if a single element understands something or not. Or consider this, does Microsoft the company understand French? It seems like a simple question, but you can easily support yes or no. In some situations it can respond to a French speaker, but not all situations.