4 ms·

I think you’re also misunderstanding the point of the Chinese Room. The Chinese room purports to show that strong AI is not possible because all computer progra

by bryan0 4y ago

I think you’re also misunderstanding the point of the Chinese Room. The Chinese room purports to show that strong AI is not possible because all computer programs cannot “understand”. I think this argument falls apart unless you can explain why our brains are not computable.

runnerup 4y ago
Fair enough. I hope I was clear that I do think that computer programs can understand. I just don't think that optimizing for solving the Turing test will generally yield a computer program capable of "understanding" or "super intelligence".
- chii 4y ago
  A turing test is meant to demonstrate one aspect of understanding/thinking. I mean, what else is a good criteria for understanding?
  - mannykannot 4y ago
    Whether, and to what extent, a given Turing test session probes understanding depends on what the interrogator chooses to ask. The training of ChatGPT does not contain any explicit bias towards demonstrating an understanding of anything, and it seems that a reasonably determined and detached interrogator should have little difficulty in identifying it on this basis.
- bryan0 4y ago
  I disagree, but I think this is one of the most interesting questions of our time.
goatlover 4y ago
Searle didn’t say AGI was impossible, rather the Chinese Room is an argument against GOFAI and symbol manipulation being enough. What makes human brains different is they’re part of an organism interacting with the environment. Symbols get their meaning from use in the environment. The Chinese Room, like chatGPT, is parasitic on those symbols whose meanings we assigned from our use in the real world.
- bryan0 4y ago
  The type of computation used in AI is irrelevant for understanding. If our brains are computable then they are Turing machines. If our brains can understand, then so can any UTM using any system of symbol manipulation it likes. If you want to define “understanding” to be limited to organisms which interact with their environment, then I think that is an overly limiting and not very useful definition.
- cultureswitch 4y ago
  The inside of a Chinese room is an environment like any other, this argument makes no sense.
cultureswitch 4y ago
All that the Chinese room experiment really shows is that in the real world, our naive notion of "understanding" is indistinguishable from a complex amalgamation of automated processes. The sooner we stop referring to "understanding" as if the word means something, the better our thinking about AI and humans will be.
- jolancer 4y ago
  What is so interesting to me is how much bias we have that my "understanding" of what you wrote is something additional to a Chinese room. IMO it is because no matter what people say outwardly, most people will not give up their "souls". They will even defer to some as yet undiscovered and unnamed property/process. "I "think", therefor I am not a Chinese room!" is not a strong argument.

by bryan0 4y ago

runnerup 4y ago

Fair enough. I hope I was clear that I do think that computer programs can understand. I just don't think that optimizing for solving the Turing test will generally yield a computer program capable of "understanding" or "super intelligence".

chii 4y ago
A turing test is meant to demonstrate one aspect of understanding/thinking. I mean, what else is a good criteria for understanding?
- mannykannot 4y ago
  Whether, and to what extent, a given Turing test session probes understanding depends on what the interrogator chooses to ask. The training of ChatGPT does not contain any explicit bias towards demonstrating an understanding of anything, and it seems that a reasonably determined and detached interrogator should have little difficulty in identifying it on this basis.
bryan0 4y ago
I disagree, but I think this is one of the most interesting questions of our time.

goatlover 4y ago

Searle didn’t say AGI was impossible, rather the Chinese Room is an argument against GOFAI and symbol manipulation being enough. What makes human brains different is they’re part of an organism interacting with the environment. Symbols get their meaning from use in the environment. The Chinese Room, like chatGPT, is parasitic on those symbols whose meanings we assigned from our use in the real world.

bryan0 4y ago
The type of computation used in AI is irrelevant for understanding. If our brains are computable then they are Turing machines. If our brains can understand, then so can any UTM using any system of symbol manipulation it likes. If you want to define “understanding” to be limited to organisms which interact with their environment, then I think that is an overly limiting and not very useful definition.
cultureswitch 4y ago
The inside of a Chinese room is an environment like any other, this argument makes no sense.

cultureswitch 4y ago

All that the Chinese room experiment really shows is that in the real world, our naive notion of "understanding" is indistinguishable from a complex amalgamation of automated processes. The sooner we stop referring to "understanding" as if the word means something, the better our thinking about AI and humans will be.

jolancer 4y ago
What is so interesting to me is how much bias we have that my "understanding" of what you wrote is something additional to a Chinese room. IMO it is because no matter what people say outwardly, most people will not give up their "souls". They will even defer to some as yet undiscovered and unnamed property/process. "I "think", therefor I am not a Chinese room!" is not a strong argument.