zlacker

I don’t think I understand this entirely. The point of the thought experiment is to assume the possibility of the room and consider the consequences. How it might be achievable in practice doesn’t alter this

>>dambi0+(OP)
The room is possible because there's someone inside with a big list of rules of what Chinese characters to reply with. This represents the huge amount of data processing and statistical power. When the thought expt was created, you could argue that the room was impossible, so the experiment was meaningless. But that's no longer the case.

>>erehwe+z1
if you go and s/Chinese Room/LLM against any of the counter arguments to the thought experiment how many of them does it invalidate?

>>dambi0+y5
I'm not sure I'm following you. My comment re Chinese room was that parent said the data processing we now have was unimaginable back in the day. In fact, it was imaginable - the Chinese room imagined it.

>>erehwe+h7
I was responding to the point that the thought experiment was meaningless.