I don’t think the Chinese room is a good analogy for this. The Chinese room has a conscious person at the center. A better analogy might be a book with a phrase-to-number conversion table, a couple number-to-number conversion tables, and finally a number-to-word conversion table. That would probably capture transformer’s rigid and unthinking associations better.
Comment on A courts reporter wrote about a few trials. Then an AI decided he was actually the culprit.
HawlSera@lemm.ee 1 month ago
It’s a fucking Chinese Room, Real AI is not possible. We don’t know what makes humans think, so of course we can’t make machines do it.
stingpie@lemmy.world 1 month ago
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
You forgot the ever important asterisk of “yet”.
Artificial General Intelligence (“Real AI”) is all but guaranteed to be possible. Because that’s what humans are. Get a deep enough understanding of humans, and you will be able to replicate what makes us think.
Barring that, there are other avenues for AGI. LLMs aren’t one of them, to be clear.
PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 1 month ago
I actually don’t think a fully artificial human like mind will ever be built outside of novelty purely because we ventured down the path of binary computing.
Great for mass calculation but horrible for the kinds of complex pattern recognitions that the human mind excels at.
The singularity point isn’t going to be the matrix or skynet or AM, it’s going to be the first quantum device successfully implanted and integrated into a human mind as a high speed calculation sidegrade “Third Hemisphere.”
Someone capable of seamlessly balancing between human pattern recognition abilities and emotional intelligence while also capable of performing near instant multiplication of matrices of 100 entries of length in 15 dimensions.
HawlSera@lemm.ee 1 month ago
When we finally stop pretending Orch-OR is pseudoscience we’ll figure it out
HawlSera@lemm.ee 1 month ago
We’re not making any progress until we accept that Penrose was right
futatorius@lemm.ee 1 month ago
It’s more correct to say it “is not provably impossible.”
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
The human brain works. Even if we are talking about wetware 1k years in our future, that would still mean is possible.