this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2023
496 points (86.9% liked)

Technology

62853 readers
3891 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
496
Barack Obama: “For elevator music, AI is going to work fine. Music like Bob Dylan or Stevie Wonder, that's different” (musictech.com)
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
269 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Barack Obama: “For elevator music, AI is going to work fine. Music like Bob Dylan or Stevie Wonder, that's different”::Barack Obama has weighed in on AI’s impact on music creation in a new interview, saying, “For elevator music, AI is going to work fine”.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Tranus 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

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