4 ms·

I'm not aware of a better definition of "understanding" that would allow me to tell whether some system "understands" some other system. Do you happen to know o

• hnfong 2mo ago
  See: A. M. Turing (1950) Computing Machinery and Intelligence. Mind 49: 433-460. I mean, my interpretation is that the question Turing tried to answer is equivalent to "How can we determine whether machines understand humans/human thought?" This only works when both systems can talk about pretty much arbitrary things, but if you want a more general method for less complex systems, perhaps having one system simulate another system is sufficient. (Which is also another Turing invention)
  • adrianN 2mo ago
    There are many people who would claim that passing the Turing test is insufficient to show "understanding" (compare for example the Chinese Room thought experiment).
    • hnfong 2mo ago
      Yes but it's (kind of?) a definition as you asked for. At this point, I am unaware of a better definition. I know the Chinese Room argument (and I disagree with it), but I'm not aware whether the proponents of that argument have a better definition of understanding other than "well, the Turing Test isn't enough"... --- PS: Interestingly the issue of compression is highly relevant regarding the Chinese Room argument -- the essential element in the Chinese Room argument is that the information is not compressed...