|
|
|
|
|
by Garlef
10 days ago
|
|
But didn't even John Searle argue at this level when refuting the "systems response" to his chinese room argument? Very simplified the refutal goes like this: "It would be silly to attribute consciousness to a room". Ultimately, Searle is berating people for even arguing inside the very analogy he put up to make a point. (... my key takeaway is that even very smart people get astonishingly dumb on this topic) |
|
And regardless of whether you think that's an interesting rebuttal or not, it's safe to say that people who properly accept anthropomorphism of llms are content to be silly in this way.