4 ms·
The entire argument here rests on a supposition in the middle: "because if GPT is just a Chinese room it shouldn’t be able to do this." "Shouldn't". According
by edfletcher_t137 4y ago
The entire argument here rests on a supposition in the middle: "because if GPT is just a Chinese room it shouldn’t be able to do this."
"Shouldn't". According to whom? Where is the source? I would posit it should and clearly can do that while still being a "Chinese room", and this entire post's premise is obliterated. Oof.
- famouswaffles 4y agoNo that's not the argument lol. The Chinese room, the philosophical zombie etc are all trash arguments 1. Your brain is a Chinese room. Forget atoms or cells, individual neurons don't understand Chinese any more than a random parameter sampled from an artificial neural network. 2. On the philosophical zombie Let's think for a bit. Suppose you have 2 equations. You don't know what these equations are. However, you know that for any input, the output is the same. Any mathematician worth his salt will tell you that given said information, those 2 equations are equal or equivalent. The point I'm driving home here is that true distinction reveals itself in results. The fallacy of the philosophical zombie is that there is this supposed important distinction between "true understanding" and "fake/mimicry/whatever understanding" and yet you can't actually test for it. You can't show this supposed huge difference. A distinction that can't be tested for is not a distinction.