My interpretation: neither of them quite got to the bottom of the error. GPT3.5’s answer was better, but GPT4’s answer was more imaginative, though more wrong. — Jamal
Banno: Are you familiar with the Chinese Room?
Chat: Yes, I am familiar with the Chinese Room thought experiment. — Banno
The advocate of the system reply however argues that the process as a whole, and hence the Chinese room as a whole, rather than the man who executes the low level algorithm, manifests understanding of the Chinese language through its emergent (and competent) verbal behavior, and thereby displays genuine intelligence. — Pierre-Normand
Q Do you think that Searle's Chinese Room thought-experiment provides an accurate analogy for the way ChatGPT operates?
A. As an AI language model, ChatGPT operates using complex algorithms and deep learning techniques that allow it to generate responses to user input. While there are similarities between ChatGPT and the Chinese Room scenario in terms of the processing of symbols and the generation of responses, there are also some key differences.
One of the main differences is that ChatGPT is capable of learning and adapting to new information over time, whereas the person in the Chinese Room scenario is simply following a set of instructions. ChatGPT is also able to process vast amounts of data and make connections between seemingly unrelated pieces of information, which is something that would be impossible for a human to do on their own.
Furthermore, ChatGPT is not programmed to simply manipulate symbols in a book, but rather it is trained on large amounts of human-generated text in order to learn the nuances of language and communication. This allows it to generate responses that are often more sophisticated and contextually appropriate than the responses that would be possible through simple symbol manipulation.
Overall, while there are some similarities between the Chinese Room scenario and the way ChatGPT operates, the differences between the two mean that the analogy is not entirely accurate. — ChatGPT
But whoever designed the room does understand Chinese, otherwise he or she would not be able to implement it. Any understanding that is manifested is, then, attributable to the creator of the system. — Wayfarer
Just for fun, I asked GPT4's younger brother what she made of this line of analysis — Wayfarer
intelligence (n.)
late 14c., "the highest faculty of the mind, capacity for comprehending general truths;" c. 1400, "faculty of understanding, comprehension," from Old French intelligence (12c.) and directly from Latin intelligentia, intellegentia "understanding, knowledge, power of discerning; art, skill, taste," from intelligentem (nominative intelligens) "discerning, appreciative," present participle of intelligere "to understand, comprehend, come to know," from assimilated form of inter "between" (see inter-) + legere "choose, pick out, read," from PIE root *leg- (1) "to collect, gather," with derivatives meaning "to speak (to 'pick out words')."
In summary, the distinction between human "true" understanding and the understanding demonstrated by AI systems like GPT-4 lies in the presence of consciousness, self-awareness, and intentionality. While AI systems can generate contextually appropriate and coherent responses, they do so through pattern recognition and statistical associations rather than conscious thought or intentional mental states. — GPT4
I'm not saying we won't improve. I'm saying it has the capacity to outcompete us. For example, someone who has traditionally hired a blogger to create content can probably already achieve a similar or even superior result in many cases using this tool. And we're just beginning. E.g. Movies scripted by AI and acted by photo-realistic avatars are probably not far around the corner. It's a socially transformative technology and it appears to be moving very quickly. — Baden
I rely on strategies to cope with our respective memory limitations. — Pierre-Normand
if no-one (or few) can tell the difference between an AI generated facsimile and the real thing. — Baden
I'm not saying we won't improve. I'm saying it has the capacity to outcompete us. For example, someone who has traditionally hired a blogger to create content can probably already achieve a similar or even superior result in many cases using this tool. And we're just beginning. E.g. Movies scripted by AI and acted by photo-realistic avatars are probably not far around the corner. It's a socially transformative technology and it appears to be moving very quickly. — Baden
Hopefully we're heading towards a world where most of the work is done by AI and the rest of us get a decent universal income. — Michael
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.