The Chinese Room Argument challenges the idea that computers can truly understand natural language. It uses a thought experiment where a person in a room follows instructions to respond to Chinese questions, despite not understanding the language. John Searle argues that machines only interpret symbols and patterns, and cannot truly understand language. Opponents argue that the system as a whole can understand and communicate in Chinese.
The Chinese Room Argument is a thought experiment designed to disprove conventional ideas about artificial intelligence. According to John Searle, the man who proposed the Chinese room argument, this thought experiment shows that computers can’t be said to have any real sense of mind or understand natural languages. Instead, the various proposed forms of artificial intelligence are little more than advanced signal processors. Naturally, this theory has numerous opponents in the AI community.
In the Chinese room argument, people are first asked to imagine a computer that has been programmed to converse Chinese so convincingly that it passes the Turing test, meaning that a human would mistake the computer for another human. Next, you are asked to imagine an English-language speaker sitting in a room that contains directions in English to respond to material presented in Chinese, such as manuals, charts, and so on.
Next, someone outside the room passes a piece of paper with a question in Chinese to the person inside. Using the instructions in English, the question is answered and reviewed. This exchange continues, with the person outside the room fully believing that the person inside can speak Chinese.
Indeed, the person inside cannot speak or write Chinese; the questions are meaningless scribbles. Instead, the person in the room searches for patterns, symbols, and syntax, using them as clues to answer questions. Although the person in the room deceived the person outside, it can’t really be said that she is conversing in Chinese.
Using this scenario as an example, Searle suggests that machines that “speak” in natural languages do not, in fact, use those languages at all. Instead, according to the Chinese Room Argument, these machines are simply interpreting symbols and looking for patterns that can be used to formulate convincing answers. Therefore, he suggested in a 1980 paper, it is impossible to create true artificial intelligence, because understanding natural language is a key to intelligence and independent thinking.
All kinds of arguments have been used to refute the Chinese room argument, such as the systems response, which points out that the room is like a system, and therefore the system as a whole understands and can communicate in Chinese, even if the individual components could ‘t. These arguments are used to advance the study of artificial intelligence, as well as being used in an attempt to answer the Chinese room argument.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
