#79 Consciousness and the Chinese Room [Special Edition] (CHOLLET, BISHOP, CHALMERS, BACH)

22 snips

Nov 8, 2022

Francois Chollet, an AI researcher at Google Brain and creator of Keras, joins a panel featuring philosopher David Chalmers and cognitive scientists to delve into the Chinese Room argument. They explore whether machines can genuinely understand language or only simulate it. The discussion challenges conventional views on consciousness, emphasizing that true understanding stems from complex interactions rather than mere rule-following. Insights into syntax versus semantics reveal the deeper philosophical implications of AI and the nature of consciousness.

Ask episode

AI Snips

Chapters

Transcript

Episode notes

ANECDOTE

Chinese Room

John Searle's Chinese Room thought experiment describes a man manipulating symbols.
He follows rules to answer questions in Chinese without understanding the language.

INSIGHT

Emergent Understanding

Francois Chollet argues that in the Chinese Room, understanding is an emergent property.
Understanding arises from the system's information processing as a whole, not individual components.

INSIGHT

Skill vs. Intelligence

Skill at a task doesn't equate to understanding the task.
Chollet argues intelligence is the ability to learn and adapt, acquiring new skills from experience.

Get the Snipd Podcast app to discover more snips from this episode

Get the app

This video is demonetised on music copyright so we would appreciate support on our Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/mlst

We would also appreciate it if you rated us on your podcast platform.

YT: https://youtu.be/_KVAzAzO5HU

Panel: Dr. Tim Scarfe, Dr. Keith Duggar

Guests: Prof. J. Mark Bishop, Francois Chollet, Prof. David Chalmers, Dr. Joscha Bach, Prof. Karl Friston, Alexander Mattick, Sam Roffey

The Chinese Room Argument was first proposed by philosopher John Searle in 1980. It is an argument against the possibility of artificial intelligence (AI) – that is, the idea that a machine could ever be truly intelligent, as opposed to just imitating intelligence.

The argument goes like this:

Imagine a room in which a person sits at a desk, with a book of rules in front of them. This person does not understand Chinese.

Someone outside the room passes a piece of paper through a slot in the door. On this paper is a Chinese character. The person in the room consults the book of rules and, following these rules, writes down another Chinese character and passes it back out through the slot.

To someone outside the room, it appears that the person in the room is engaging in a conversation in Chinese. In reality, they have no idea what they are doing – they are just following the rules in the book.

The Chinese Room Argument is an argument against the idea that a machine could ever be truly intelligent. It is based on the idea that intelligence requires understanding, and that following rules is not the same as understanding.

in this detailed investigation into the Chinese Room, Consciousness and Syntax vs Semantics, we interview luminaries J.Mark Bishop and Francois Chollet and use unreleased footage from our interviews with David Chalmers, Joscha Bach and Karl Friston. We also cover material from Walid Saba and interview Alex Mattick from Yannic's Discord.

This is probably my favourite ever episode of MLST. I hope you enjoy it! With Keith Duggar.

Note that we are using clips from our unreleased interviews from David Chalmers and Joscha Bach -- we will release those shows properly in the coming weeks. We apologise for delay releasing our backlog, we have been busy building a startup company in the background.

TOC:

[00:00:00] Kick off

[00:00:46] Searle

[00:05:09] Bishop introduces CRA

[00:00:00] Stevan Hardad take on CRA

[00:14:03] Francois Chollet dissects CRA

[00:34:16] Chalmers on consciousness

[00:36:27] Joscha Bach on consciousness

[00:42:01] Bishop introduction

[00:51:51] Karl Friston on consciousness

[00:55:19] Bishop on consciousness and comments on Chalmers

[01:21:37] Private language games (including clip with Sam Roffey)

[01:27:27] Dr. Walid Saba on the chinese room (gofai/systematicity take)

[00:34:36] Bishop: on agency / teleology

[01:36:38] Bishop: back to CRA

[01:40:53] Noam Chomsky on mysteries

[01:45:56] Eric Curiel on math does not represent

[01:48:14] Alexander Mattick on syntax vs semantics

Thanks to: Mark MC on Discord for stimulating conversation, Alexander Mattick, Dr. Keith Duggar, Sam Roffey. Sam's YouTube channel is https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjRNMsglFYFwNsnOWIOgt1Q