OpenAI’s big pitch for its new o1 LLM, a.k.a. “Strawberry,” is that it goes through an actual reasoning process to answer you. The computer is alive! The paperclip apocalypse is imminen…
I figured he was talking about Searle’s Chinese room thought experiment. Searle sucks though, so that’s probably also racist (in addition to being stupid.)
In 2024 it is, at the very least, extremely uncomfortable to read Searle describe Chinese writing as “meaningless scribbles”, “formal symbols”*, “squiggle squiggle”, and “squoggle squoggle”. Basically taking Chinese, ignoring the fact that it’s a real language used by real people and is not alien nor inscrutable nor mathematical, and using it as a prop to purposefully obfuscate a thought experiment.
But that’s like, just my opinion man.
* The paper never seems to get around to calling English letters symbols I wonder why.
the reason to pick Chinese may be racist (possibly due to the writing system looking complicated) but the thought experiment itself doesn’t have racist connotations imo, and i don’t think it’s stupid either. doesn’t have to involve Chinese or a specific language at all.
it’s a logical question to ask: if i can mimic speaking in a language to a point that it convinces native speakers, but don’t understand what I’m saying myself, am I considered a genuine speaker of that language? does what i say matter or have any value?
Scientists: weird, we didn’t slip this piece of paper saying “mansplain the chinese room thought experiment” through the door, and yet that’s all the room seems to want to do. I guess we just have to conclude the room is an idiot?
what an unnecessarily aggressive comment. mansplain? am i even responding to a woman? also i wasn’t trying to explain it; i was saying the central question doesn’t have to involve a specific language at all and it still a worthy question, especially with all this AI bullshit being pushed all over.
I figured he was talking about Searle’s Chinese room thought experiment. Searle sucks though, so that’s probably also racist (in addition to being stupid.)
In 2024 it is, at the very least, extremely uncomfortable to read Searle describe Chinese writing as “meaningless scribbles”, “formal symbols”*, “squiggle squiggle”, and “squoggle squoggle”. Basically taking Chinese, ignoring the fact that it’s a real language used by real people and is not alien nor inscrutable nor mathematical, and using it as a prop to purposefully obfuscate a thought experiment.
But that’s like, just my opinion man.
* The paper never seems to get around to calling English letters symbols I wonder why.
the reason to pick Chinese may be racist (possibly due to the writing system looking complicated) but the thought experiment itself doesn’t have racist connotations imo, and i don’t think it’s stupid either. doesn’t have to involve Chinese or a specific language at all.
it’s a logical question to ask: if i can mimic speaking in a language to a point that it convinces native speakers, but don’t understand what I’m saying myself, am I considered a genuine speaker of that language? does what i say matter or have any value?
well it appears like you’re posting english, but actually you’re posting nonsense
so the answer to your question is no
elaborate? what doesn’t make sense?
no thanks
Scientists: weird, we didn’t slip this piece of paper saying “mansplain the chinese room thought experiment” through the door, and yet that’s all the room seems to want to do. I guess we just have to conclude the room is an idiot?
what an unnecessarily aggressive comment. mansplain? am i even responding to a woman? also i wasn’t trying to explain it; i was saying the central question doesn’t have to involve a specific language at all and it still a worthy question, especially with all this AI bullshit being pushed all over.
christ