Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Chinese Room

Comments
Aaron Kirkes
Joe Cabrera

Reference Information 
Minds, Brains, and Programs
John R. Searle
Wikipedia - Chinese Room


Summary

The Chinese Room is a problem proposed in the field of Artificial Intelligence in which a user communicates with a "room" using Chinese characters. The room represents the computer or agent as a whole.  Inside the room is a person that does not speak Chinese but using predefined instructions, draws Chinese symbols and communicates with the user although the one in the room has no idea what he wrote. The argument this scenarios raises is if an agent can truly have AI (strong AI) or only simulates intelligence but is not actually intelligent (weak AI). Searle uses this as an argument to state that no program can give an agent strong AI.


Discussion
By Searle's argument, planes don't fly
I do not agree with Searle. The Chinese room represents an expert system in which, for that purpose that it was designed to carry out, is intelligent. I feel this argument is pedantic and whose true focus is terminology. If we go by Searle's argument then mankind has still yet to reach flight. The Wright Brothers had it all wrong. By Searle's argument, our modern aircraft only simulate flight but do not actually achieve it. Because our aircraft don't flap their wings like a bird does in nature, we have not yet been able to make a flying machine. I'm sure many would argue that man IS able to fly so the same logic can be applied to this Chinese Room argument.
Posted by at

5 comments:

  1. Cindy SkachJanuary 19, 2011 at 11:51 PM

    So do you disagree just with Searle's methods or do you disagree with him entirely? While I do agree with you that his argument is pedantic, I do also agree with him that computers will never truly be capable of understanding since they have to be programmed to do anything meaningful.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Miguel Alex CardenasJanuary 19, 2011 at 11:58 PM

    I agree that programs will never truly understand but I personally would measure AI by how well it can fool the average person. "If it looks intelligent, feels intelligent, smells intelligent...It must be intelligent!"

    ReplyDelete
  3. Adam FriedliJanuary 20, 2011 at 3:01 AM

    You raise an interesting point. The discussion of artificial intelligence seems quite subjective then. A powerful computer is capable of doing far more than any group of humans could, but does this necessarily mean computers are "better" than humans? Humans still built the machine, just as a human still designed the AI that is demonstrating the intelligence of its creator. Maybe it could be intelligent by inheritance, haha.

    ReplyDelete
  4. PaolaJanuary 20, 2011 at 6:01 AM

    Maybe humans could perform by hand what a computer can do, but of course it will take us so long that it would defeat the purpose. Humans built computers as a tool. I don't think computers can be smarter than the person that created them.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Stuart J.January 20, 2011 at 8:57 AM

    I love your analogy with airplanes. I'm not sure if Searle set out to make it a terminology argument however, they might just not have had enough terms to describe Artificial Intelligence at the time of writing the article.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)