[circuit10]

> “You're misunderstanding the thought experiment then.”

So if I don’t agree with it, I’m misunderstanding it? It even says in the Wikipedia article for it:

> "The overwhelming majority", notes BBS editor Stevan Harnad, "still think that the Chinese Room Argument is dead wrong".

So don’t try to pretend it’s some absolute truth, it’s just a flawed argument

> Programs don't contain understanding or intelligence, they contain instructions.

Why can intelligence and understanding not come from a sufficiently complex set of instructions?

> understanding is a conscious experience and neither a blender nor a recipe are sentient.

That’s an odd definition of understanding. By my definition understanding is having information about something and the ability to process it such that you can effectively predict its behaviour and possibly take actions to change its state to fit a goal. I guess you will always win if you redefine all the words to mean what you want. Your definition is useless because it’s unfalsifiable because you can’t measure whether something is “sentient”

> Just pointing out that convolutional neural networks are not self aware or intelligent or actually learning

Self aware? Probably no

Intelligent? To some extent, yes

Learning? Of course they are, I don’t see how you can argue that they aren’t

[hmcq6]

> So if I don’t agree with it, I’m misunderstanding it?

Now you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying you're not allowed to have a different opinion on the full thought experiment. You're assuming intelligence in the setup of the thought experiment and that is objectively not how it is meant to be interpreted.

> Why can intelligence and understanding not come from a sufficiently complex set of instructions?

Again I didn't say it can't just that convolutional neural networks as they currently exist are not that complex. It's a fancy Markov chain.

> I guess you will always win if you redefine all the words to mean what you want.

You say directly after making up your own definition of intelligence. I'm not interested in discussing your definition of intelligence or the definition of intelligence, I'm talking about this specific application of technology and if it meets a common definition of intelligence. Please point to a dictionary definition if you wanna continue this back and forth

> Learning? Of course they are, I don’t see how you can argue that they aren’t

Because learning has a definition. Theres a reason AI researchers call it "Training" and not "Teaching"

[circuit10]

> You say directly after making up your own definition of intelligence.

I guess but I think the one I’m using is more common and useful. The Google dictionary says “the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills” which is closer to mine (having knowledge and the ability to apply it) than yours (some abstract idea of consciousness that can’t be measured)

> Theres a reason AI researchers call it "Training" and not "Teaching"

They also call it machine learning

[hmcq6]

> the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills

Ok but what is knowledge? You need to follow that rabbit hole. Knowledge isn't just data. You'll find that knowledge is frequently defined with some tie in to experience and the definition of experience is tied to consciousness.

> They also call it machine learning

They have called the field Artificial Intelligence (or ML) since 1956 but that doesn't mean they had an example of an instance of artificial intelligence. It's just the name of the field. I've never heard of a researcher referring to the act of training as "machine learning" though, just the field.