Thought today's smbc comic was too funny not to share. Source

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 71 points 1 month ago (60 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (56 children)

    Seems like a pretty stupid argument. If I sat in a room and wrote what a native speaker told me to write, I wouldn't understand the conversation, but the native speaker would. How is that different than doing what an LLM says?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 56 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 1 month ago (8 children)

    The argument predates LLMs by decades, and in other forms it has existed for centuries. It doesn't directly corellate to modern LLMs. It is an example of how a mechanism could mimic human intelligence without actually being intelligent. It's a thought experiment. LLMs are not lookup tables, they are neural network based statistical models, but a similar argument can be made.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago

    Is there any actual material difference between what they're describing (the computer equivalent of a philosophical zombie, I would say), and a true agi? Their point seems rather vacuous to me (all I did was read the Wikipedia article).

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (5 replies)
  • [–] 27 points 1 month ago (18 children)

    In the second scenario, there is no β€œnative speaker” that is telling you what to write. There is a list of instructions that you are following that is the same as the instructions that the computer was following with the first scenario.

    The argument is that if, by following the exact instructions that the computer is following, you still do not understand the Chinese conversation, why would you say that the machine understands?

    I haven’t thought about the idea enough to say I agree or disagree, but I hope I understood your comment and that the explanation helps.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (8 children)

    I'd like to add a rebuttal I tend to agree with: You're only a component of a larger system, and the whole system (you + the room + your list of instructions) does encode some understanding, otherwise a chinese speaker wouldn't be able to interact with the room in any meaningful way.

    In almost any system, you can look at a specific part and argue that part doesn't fulfill a property that the entire system taken as one does.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • load more comments (9 replies)
  • [–] 14 points 1 month ago (16 children)

    I think you grasp the point, it is exactly what an LLM does

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (15 children)

    An LLM doesn't transcribe what someone else writes for a given input.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago* (6 children)

    🀷 πŸˆβ€

    You have a cat. The cat meows at you. You do nothing. The cat keeps meowing at you. You offer it food as a guess. The cat stops meowing.

    The next day, the cat starts meowing at you again, but slightly different. You give it food. It keeps meowing. You give it a belly rub, the cat stops meowing.

    You have inadvertently learned the correct response to two types of cat meows. However, you do not speak cat. Nor does the cat speak human. You are just giving a response it expects for a given input.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

    The difference between this and the Chinese Room is that you are attempting to understand what the cat is saying, and making a response that both you and the cat understand. You are attempting to communicate. The Chinese Room is many people who do not understand the input, do not understand the output, and have neither the capability nor the will to do either.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    ...but does the system that is the Chinese Room (the entire system taken as a whole) understand Chinese?

    Any given sufficiently small piece of your brain does not understand English, does no individual neuron in the language center of your brain understanding English mean that you do not understand English? If that understanding is held in the organization and structure of the brain but not in the individual parts, then why can't the Chinese Room understand Chinese despite no individual component understanding Chinese? That's a surprisingly difficult question to answer in a coherent fashion without asserting that knowledge in an organic brain is magical in some fashion, and nothing else counts.

    Wait until you consider the concept of philosophical zombies, which is all about pointing out the edges and contours of the hard problem of consciousness. The starting point of that discussion is essentially "Is someone who responds exactly like a regular person would but has no actual subjective experience conscious?" and gets stranger from there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    I always thought it was a bit tragically amusing that LLMs can fool people so readily, because it was essentially proof that P-zombies can exist. And we invented them.

    As for the Chinese Room and understanding Chinese, my argument has always been that the chart contains an understanding of Chinese - but as the chart itself cannot think, it does not understand Chinese in the way a person does, and as each person who is in the Chinese Room does not - and cannot - glean meaning from the input they receive or the output that they send out, they have no understanding at all. Understanding also implies being able to adapt the knowledge to new situations, and as the chart that drives the Chinese Room is immutable and cannot accomodate novel scenarios, it does not understand Chinese.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago*

    Also doesn't cat only meows when trying to communicate with different species? They are not speaking cat either, they are just hoping you pick up what they want. (in this case it actually shows intent, something a LLM or said chinese room is not capable of doing)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    If you got a spare minute and then 600 of those you could read Peter Watts Blindsight, the main viewpoint character is basically a chinese room which is not a spoiler but an important keypoint of the whole story. Its also sci-fi and a bit weird

    While we are at it, there is this page that is an interesting display of the making of a fan movie trailer https://blindsight.space/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    Yeah. It basically states that because all your neurons and synapses in the human brain follow quantum physics and can be simulated by a formal program, and do not know what they are doing or know meaning, humans are not sentient but merely simulate being a mind.

    It's really infuriating how one of the dumbest and self evident fallacious thought experiments gets so famous. Because idiots keep repeating it like the sub-sentient LLMs they are.

    Because that is what we are really learning from LLMs. It's not shocking that LLMs aren't sentient, it's shocking that we now know what minds can talk seemingly intelligent without having to be sentient. Which explains the current state of the world.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (3 replies)