490
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2023
490 points (86.8% liked)
Technology
58143 readers
4452 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I know this was once said about the automobile, but I am confident in the knowledge that AI is just a passing fad
Why? It's a tool like any other, and we're unlikely to stop using it.
Right now there's a lot of hype because some tech that made a marked impact of consumers was developed, and that's likely to ease off a bit, but the actual AI and machine learning technology has been a thing for years before that hype, and will continue after the hype.
Much like voice driven digital assistants, it's unlikely to redefine how we interact with technology, but every other way I set a short timer has been obsoleted at this point, and I'm betting that auto complete having insight into what your writing will just be the norm going forward.
It's just a Chinese room dude, it doesn't actually do anything useful
The Chinese room argument doesn't have anything to do with usefulness. Its about whether or not a computer that passes the turing test is conscious. Besides, the argument is a ridiculous one to begin with. It assumes that if a subcomponent of a system (ie the human) lacks "understanding", then the system itself (the human + the room + the program) lacks understanding.
Anything else aside, I wouldn't be so critical of the thought experiment. It's from 1980 and was intended as an argument against the thought that symbolic manipulation is all that's required for a computer to have understanding of language.
It being a thought experiment that examines where understanding originates in a system that's been given serious reply and discussion for 43 years makes me feel like it's not ridiculous.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/#LargPhilIssu