As discussed previously on HN: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=the%20Chinese%20room%20argument&sort=byPopularity&type=story https

As discussed previously on HN: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=the%20Chinese%20room%20argument&sort=byPopularity&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... Searle's thought experiment is due for an update. The entire force of the argument is simply to refute using Turing's Imitation game as a means of determining whether machines can think. In Computing Machinery and Intelligence, Turing wrote: "The new form of the problem can be described in terms of a game which we call the ‘imitation game’. It is played with three people, a man (A), a woman (B), and an interrogator (C) who may be of either sex. The interrogator stays in a room apart from the other two. The object of the game for the interrogator is to determine which of the other two is the man and which is the woman. He knows them by labels X and Y, and at the end of the game he says either ‘X is A and Y is B’ or ‘X is B and Y is A’. The interrogator is allowed to put questions to A and B thus: [question/answer follows ...] "We now ask the question, ‘What will happen when a machine takes the part of A in this game?’ Will the interrogator decide wrongly as often when the game is played like this as he does when the game is played between a man and a woman? These questions replace our original, ‘Can machines think?’" https://academic.oup.com/mind/article/LIX/236/433/986238 https://academic.oup.com/mind/article/LIX/236/433/986238 To misquote Djikstra, the Turing test is as relevant to question of machine intelligence as an underwater mobility test is to the question of whether a submarine is an artificial fish.