Reminder that the Chinese room has never and will never be refuted. No machine will ever think or be intelligent.
>>16387708>Reminder that the Chinese room has never and will never be refuted.It can't be refuted since it takes its conclusion as a premise.
>>16387708The argument assumes, without evidence, that an intelligent dialogue can occur in Chinese characters, thus may be refuted for begging the question.
>>16387720Wow an actually witty reply on 4chan. It’s been a while I didn’t know this could still happen on this site.
>>16387719This. As soon as you mention the Chinese room I know immediately that I would have a more productive conversation with an animal.
>>16387759>As soon as you mention the Chinese room I know immediately that I would have a more productive conversation with a Chinese room.
>>16387708yeah so neurons don't understand the information they process therefore brain cannot be the brain
>>16387708The binding problem will need to be solved first before you can get a sentient AI.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_problemhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z-XYc93mzwhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RT9tnzucnPUhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlIgmTALU74https://qualiacomputing.com/2022/06/19/digital-computers-will-remain-unconscious-until-they-recruit-physical-fields-for-holistic-computing-using-well-defined-topological-boundaries/
>>16387708>no machine will think or ever be intelligent I don't think that's the general intent or purpose. The artificial intelligence software is designed to pick up linguistical problems that can optimize legal and bureaucratic paperwork that us often slow and inefficient for humans. Also there's a data science component where large systems like economic and socail which can collect data in real time and act on those measurements at the speed of light which is way faster then a human can
>>16387708With sufficient compute you could create an atomic level simulation of an entire human brain.
>>16387900Still just a computer pretending to be alive, there is no universe in that computer, it's simply silicone transistors number crunching yes and no over and over again,
>>16387906> AliveLife does not really exist. Its an arbitrary concept we invented.
>>16387906This is 98 IIQ level thinking. These are machines that increase productivity. Like robots manufacturering cars on a assembly line. Idiots like you whine a bout stupid shit. Yet a computer can calculate at the speed of light. Look how fast chat gpt can write a paper it takes seconds. Meanwhile it would take a human hours or days The winner here is no brainer
>>16387924Life does exist idiot. What do you think your life is? A hullcination or a dream? Manipulation of chemicals? Regardless of what you think doesn't make it less real.
>>16387929Computers do not calculate at the speed of light. Everything you have stated is retarded as hell. ML is not solving any of the hard problems and doesn't not circumvent the halting problem, which is the simplest of possible statements that can be said about an algorithm. ML will never be able to self-validate.
>>16387936Life as a concept only exists in our minds, in reality there is just chemicals. There is no fundamental difference between life and non-life. Sure the things we define as alive exist, but life is just a word we invented with an arbitrary definition.
>>16387708who comes up with this garbage?
>>16387708The man in the Chinese room, combined with the instructions, are simple the substrate that the Chinese speaking intelligence runs off. Do the neurons in your brain have sapience or understanding? Of course not, they just do their job and their activities create your mind as an emergent property. The man in the room is also a poor analogy thought because he is sapient, and would likely learn some amount of understanding of Chinese over time.
>>16387947I get what your trying to say I'm not in disagreement. I guess what I'm trying to say is your version of thinking seems a little extreme and almost nihilistic. When you deduce life to chemicals you absolve life of meaning and purpose. When clearly even though it may be chemical interactions. These feelings and emotions people experience seem real. And inescapable. Like if I slapped the shit out of you. You would 100% get angry. And no amount of logic and reason can get rid of that.
>>16387939>computers don't calculate at the speed of light.BAKA have you studied electromagnetism or the piezoelectric effect? Studied electrical engineering? Or integrated circuits? Electricity moves at the speed of light retard.
>>16387983CCP psyop to trick intelligent life forms into accepting the premise of Chinese intelligence. It's a classic sales technique called "thinking past the sale."
>>16387708For me, it's the MUNCHAUSEN TRILEMMA.
>>16387708> cope
>>16387708The set of instructions is complex enough to be considered sentient.
>>16388046Like how a circular sex munching chain can't be strictly heterosexual if there are an odd number of participants? Agrippa's original argument was apparently stated in terms of fivesomes but, yes, also applies to threesomes.
>>16388065I'm just going to think of that in terms of pearl chain formation.
>>16387929>Muh China brain analogy LLMs aren't intelligent, let alone alive pseud
>>16388070High key the lowest qi thread in the catalog
Doesn't that also mean no human will ever think or be intelligent?
>>16388118Human intelligence is axiomatic in this thought experiment. The question is whether Chinese writing can break the glass ceiling of mimicry.
>>16388126I get it, but my point is that our body is just obeying the laws of physics like the guy who doesn't speak chinese in the thought experiment is just obeying the rules for talking chinese with the exterior person.
>>16388178Right, every intelligent human obeys the laws of physics, just as rocks and moss also obey those laws. The thought experiment is whether a Chinese mimicry of intelligence can rise to the level of human intelligence.
>>16387708... But the man in the room translating the Chinese is conscious/sentient, even if he doesn't understand Chinese.
An intelligent Chinese speaker created the instructions that the man follows. An intelligent man is performing the translations. It's a shitty analogy.
>>16388246>intelligent Chinese speakerBegs the question.
>>16388062That Deepmind AI that played Atari games was capable of doing things that the devs didn't anticipate. And there's nothing about that, besides the speed, that couldn't be run by doing an ungodly amount of matrix math by hand, right? So right there there's sets of instructions that get away from any human. There's probably much simpler examples out there even.
>>16387719>It can't be refuted since it takes its conclusion as a premise.So then it's like evolution theory?
>>16387708Chinese room argument is like opening the hood of your car and saying "What!! There's no engine here! Only a bunch of gears and pulleys and pistons!"
>>16387708I'd say that it can't be refuted or proven because we don't really understand enough about how our brains work. Our most advanced attempts at creating an intelligent machine still haven't created 'intelligence' so much as a really impressive sorting algorithm. You can have a conversation with an AI, and you can ask it any technical question and have it explain the answer to you indistinguishably from how a human would explain it, but our current model still can't "think". You probably remember a while back when people were asking Google's AI how to hold sandwiches together, and it was suggesting non toxic glue. If you asked the AI whether or not it was good to eat glue on its own, it would tell you not to. Because that question wasn't part of the original parameter, the AI still told people to eat glue despite having access to that information. It can see that glue isn't something edible, and if you asked it it would tell you, but it can't take that data and apply it to a problem in a way it isn't specifically told to do. While that's our current model of AI, it's pretty close to how we know our brains work. We can map out which piece does what, and we understand the methods the brain uses to do what it does, but we still really don't know what ties it all together into something sentient.I'm sure we'll get there eventually, but for now, until we know enough about intelligence to recreate a perfect working human brain (biological or mechanical) the Chinese room idea seems accurate for what we have.
>>16388584I think you mean the Bible.
>>16387708You're right. Thinking, knowing, these are not compatible with this universe.
>>16387986Not him but what your saying is a machine no matter how complex will ever be "alive" like we are, and yet what are we if not biological machines that also have complex moving parts.
> Reminder that the Chinese room has never and will never be refundedI AM OFFERING YOU A 30 DAY MONEY BACK GUARANTEE>IF YOU AREN'T FULLY SATISFIED WITH YOUR CHINESE ROOMJUST CALL OUR TOLL-FREE NUMBER AND WE WILL REFUND YOUR ORDER>PREMIUM CHINESE ROOMS JUST $19.95 ORDER BY VISA / MASTERCARD
>>16387708If it can increase the quality of my like by making me more intelligent by sparking thoughts of my own, who cares? My dog probably isn't actually isn't thinking as much as I credit either, but I am still better off empathizing.
>>16387939>ML is not solving any of the hard problemsMachine Learning is already helping to do all the difficult surgeries that human surgeons can not do as efficiently and cleanly on their own with the DaVinci Surgical System, your assumptions have already been proven wrong.
>>16387986>Like if I slapped the shit out of you. You would 100% get angry.Wrong, I have watched over 9000 hours of Slap Fights and they almost never get angry at each other.
>>16387708I don't understand this desire to insist that 'thinking', 'intelligence', 'consciousness', etc, are somehow supernatural things only one special type of being can poasess.This is literally just an obfuscated argument for the existence of souls.
>>16388246>An intelligent Chinese speaker created the instructions that the man followsAI is generally trained on data from real people too, how is it a bad analogy?
>>16388856A human mind is trained by years of observation and interpersonal experience. We are not born with language or reasoning. Neither does our language or reasoning develop spontaneously within us. Our minds are trained on vast quantities of data.
>>16388883Then yea because the Chinese Room is not an analogy for a human mind, it is an analogy for AI and how it is different from a human mind.
>>16387708t. ard
>>16387708I'm a chinese room and I approve of this thread.No one must know.
>>16387906It is an article of faith among computer scientists that pretending to be something is the same as being that thing
>>16387929>chat gpt can write a paper it takes seconds
>>16387929You know when you were a kid you had a cousin, slightly older, who would make up total bullshit and pass it off as fact? Even when there was no advantage to making up bullshit.ChatGPT is the electronic version of that cousin.
>>16389175I don't believe you have a cousin like that, I am pretty sure you are just bullshitting for internet clout.
>>16389212What would be the advantage to me for doing that?
>>16387708WRONG, rational agents exist.
>>16387906>simply electrical signals crunching yes and no over and over againHaha, yeah, we're TOTALLY not anything like that.>>16387924It's the behavior emerging from sufficiently complex and low-entropy systems. Where exactly you choose to draw the line is up to you, but arguments could be made for very strong AIs being alive. A very, very alien form of life, but still life by any meaningful definition.
>>16389930>arguments could be made for very strong AIs being aliveMake one.
>>16389943It certainly does do a degree of "thinking", in that it is able to create original content rather than just making a collage of input data. Going by the thermodynamic definition of life, it measures up in that regard too, as it is able to produce low-entropy orderly systems.I should specify that I wouldn't personally call our current AIs alive, although they're getting there. My personal arbitrary threshold is higher than what they currently can achieve, but another person could easily set their threshold within their capabilities.
>>16390007>able to create original content rather than just making a collage of input dataWhat's the distinction you're making here?>able to produce low-entropy orderly systemsI don't really understand what you mean by this either
>>16390018>What's the distinction you're making here?That it is not copying data and calling it its own, as some accuse it of doing. It is creating its own data.>I don't really understand what you mean by this eitherOne existing view that I enjoy on what separates living things from non-living things is that life is something that seeks to counteract nature's tendency to accelerate entropy in its immediate surroundings. Things tend to disorder, but life tries to create order (and is an instance of extreme order in of itself).
>>16387708>the Chinese room has never and will never be refuted.The "Rule Book" can not be written.
>>16390084>copying data/ collage of input data [vs.] creating its own data/ original contentBut by what standard of recomposition is this distinction made? What's a transformation of data that shuffles data around and creates new content vs. a transformation of data that simply shuffles data around but only creates a collage?
>>16390123Do bytes of the original data appear in the output? Can the output be deterministically decoded back into the source?
>>16390149Which one of these (or both, or none) qualifies as original content?
>>16387708I think the "Chinese Room" is perfectEventually a human given enough time would learn Chinese if they followed the rulebook, but to the outside observer, nothing changesIntelligent machines will seem intelligent far before they are
>>16390174They are each criteria that would disqualify content from being considered original. To my knowledge, neither of these can be said of most AIs.
>>16387720toppest kek holy fuck
>>16387708The room it self is how mind operates. Semantics is just interconection of syntaxes.
>>16388653>NO U!
>>16387708Who wrote the rulebook?
>>16387708I'm pretty sure that I'm a chinese room, amd not truly intelligent. I just follow rules.>>16388768Kek>>16391191Evolution.
>>16387708Any book that contains every possible conversation would be infinitely big. Same as with the Turing test, to pretend to understand something 100% is equivalent to understanding it.
