3 ms·

I think to communicate like a human you need to be able to think like a human, at least to the point where it's indistuinguishable. That's the whole point of th

I think to communicate like a human you need to be able to think like a human, at least to the point where it's indistuinguishable. That's the whole point of the turing test.

smoldesu 4y ago
The point of the Chinese Room Test is to distinguish between Turing's definition of intelligence and the human definition of intelligence. It poses two separate possibilities; is this AI understanding the language, or simulating the ability to understand the language? You might find the answer to be arbitrary or meaningless, but it is an important distinction. I could pretend to be a random number generator well enough to fool anyone who's distinguishing me from a computer. That doesn't mean that I'm a reliable source of entropy, or equally as random as the other, similar result. Treated as a black-box they are the same; treated as a mechanical system, they could not be more different.
- chpatrick 4y ago
  There's no such thing as a "chinese room test". The point of the thought experiment is that from the point of view of the person outside the room it doesn't matter if the person inside the room speaks chinese or is just following rules. If you're only corresponding with them by text you can't tell the difference. It's exactly the same with large language model and why I don't think statements like "oh it doesn't have intelligence/doesn't "REALLY" understand/it' "only" a large language model" don't really make any sense. As far as I know I could be talking to a large language model right now, but I'm not accusing you of not understanding. It's like the aliens coming to our planets and saying we can't be intelligent because we're made of meat.
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    The fact that intelligent and unintelligent text are indistinguishable doesn't prove that ChatGPT's output is intelligent. It more suggests that text is not the right medium for measuring intelligence in the first place. That's what the Chinese room experiment is about.
    - chpatrick 4y ago
      To me that's a really weird argument. It implies you can't read the theory of relativity and conclude Albert Einstein was a really intelligent guy unless you were in the room with him to make sure he's not a robot in disguise.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]

I think to communicate like a human you need to be able to think like a human, at least to the point where it's indistuinguishable. That's the whole point of the turing test.

smoldesu 4y ago

The point of the Chinese Room Test is to distinguish between Turing's definition of intelligence and the human definition of intelligence. It poses two separate possibilities; is this AI understanding the language, or simulating the ability to understand the language? You might find the answer to be arbitrary or meaningless, but it is an important distinction. I could pretend to be a random number generator well enough to fool anyone who's distinguishing me from a computer. That doesn't mean that I'm a reliable source of entropy, or equally as random as the other, similar result. Treated as a black-box they are the same; treated as a mechanical system, they could not be more different.

chpatrick 4y ago
There's no such thing as a "chinese room test". The point of the thought experiment is that from the point of view of the person outside the room it doesn't matter if the person inside the room speaks chinese or is just following rules. If you're only corresponding with them by text you can't tell the difference. It's exactly the same with large language model and why I don't think statements like "oh it doesn't have intelligence/doesn't "REALLY" understand/it' "only" a large language model" don't really make any sense. As far as I know I could be talking to a large language model right now, but I'm not accusing you of not understanding. It's like the aliens coming to our planets and saying we can't be intelligent because we're made of meat.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  The fact that intelligent and unintelligent text are indistinguishable doesn't prove that ChatGPT's output is intelligent. It more suggests that text is not the right medium for measuring intelligence in the first place. That's what the Chinese room experiment is about.
  - chpatrick 4y ago
    To me that's a really weird argument. It implies you can't read the theory of relativity and conclude Albert Einstein was a really intelligent guy unless you were in the room with him to make sure he's not a robot in disguise.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]