Czl2 t1_j8umouq wrote on February 17, 2023 at 1:38 AM

Reply to comment by CypherLH in Emerging Behaviour by SirDidymus

> Interesting points though I personally detest the Chinese Room Argument since by its logic no human can actually be intelligent either…

I suspect you have a private definition for the term “intelligent“ else you misunderstand the Chinese Room argument. The argument says no matter how intelligent it seems a digital computer executing a program cannot have a "mind", "understanding", or "consciousness".

> unless you posit that humans have something magical that lets them escape the Chinese Room logic.

Yes the argument claims there is something magical about human minds such that the logic of the Chinese Room does not apply to them and this part of the argument resembles the discredited belief in vitalism:

>> Vitalism is a belief that starts from the premise that "living organisms are fundamentally different from non-living entities because they contain some non-physical element or are governed by different principles than are inanimate things."

CypherLH t1_j8uoh2l wrote on February 17, 2023 at 1:51 AM

I understand the Chinese Room argument, I just think its massively flawed. As I pointed out before, if you accept its premise then you must accept that NOTHING is "actually intelligent" unless you invoke something like the "vitalism" you referenced and claim humans have special magic that makes them "actually intelligent"...which is mystic nonsense and must be rejected from a materialist standpoint.

The Chinese Room Argument DOES show that no digital intelligence could be the same as _human_ intelligence but that is just a form of circular logic and not useful in any way; its another way of saying "a non-human intelligence is not a human mind". That is obviously true but also a functionally pointless and obvious statement.

Czl2 t1_j8v60kl wrote on February 17, 2023 at 4:13 AM

Visit Wikipedia or Britannica encyclopedia and compare what I told you against your understanding. I expect you will discover your understanding does not match what is generally accepted. Do you think these encyclopedias are both wrong?

Here is the gap in bold:

> As I pointed out before, if you accept its premise then you must accept that NOTHING is 'actually intelligent' unless you invoke something like the "vitalism" you referenced and claim humans have special magic that makes them...

The argument does not pertain to intelligence. To quote my last comment:

>> The argument says no matter how intelligent it seems a digital computer executing a program cannot have a "mind", "understanding", or "consciousness".

Do you see the gap? Your concept is "actually intelligent". The accepted concepts are: "mind", "understanding", or "consciousness" regardless of intelligence. A big difference, is it not?

CypherLH t1_j8vdxku wrote on February 17, 2023 at 5:29 AM

I'll grant there is a gap there..... but it actually makes the whole thing _weaker_ than I was granting...cause I don't give a shit about whether an AI system is "conscious" or "understanding" or a "mind", those are BS meaningless mystical terms. What I care about is the practical demonstration of intelligence; what measurable intelligence does a system exhibit. I'll let priests and philosophers debate about whether its "really a mind" and how many angels can dance on the head of a pin while I use the AI to do fun or useful stuff.

Czl2 t1_j9030la wrote on February 18, 2023 at 4:58 AM

> I’ll grant there is a gap there….. but it actually makes the whole thing weaker than I was granting…

What you described as the Chinese room argument is not the commonly accepted Chinese room “argument”. Your version was about “intelligence” the accepted version is about “conscious” / “understanding” / “mind” regardless how intelligent the machine is.

Whether the commonly accepted Chinese room argument is “weaker“ is difficult to judge due to the difference between them. I expect to judge whether a machine has “conscious” / “understanding” / “mind” will be harder than judging whether that machine is intelligent.

To judge intelligence there are objective tests. Are there objective tests to judge “consciousness” / “understanding” / “mind”? I suspect not.

> cause I don’t give a shit about whether an AI system is “conscious” or “understanding” or a “mind”, those are BS meaningless mystical terms.

For you they are “meaningless mystical terms”. For many others these are important aspects that they believe make humans “human”. They care about these things because these things determine how mechanical minds are viewed and treated by society.

When you construct an LLM today you are free to delete it. When you create a child however you are not free to “delete it”. If ever human minds are judged to be equaivalent to machine minds will machine minds come to be treated like human minds?

Will instead human minds come to be treated like machine minds which we are free to do with as we please (enslave / delete / ...)? When human minds come to be treated like machines will it make sense to care whether they suffer? To a machine what is suffering? Is your car “suffering” when check engine light is on? It is but a “status light” is it not?

> What I care about is the practical demonstration of intelligence; what measurable intelligence does a system exhibit. I’ll let priests and philosophers debate about whether its “really a mind” and how many angels can dance on the head of a pin while I use the AI to do fun or useful stuff.

I understand your attitude since I share it.