Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bullshit About Bullshit Machines [pdf]

aphyr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 53 posts

Re: Bullshit About Bullshit Machines [pdf]

#41

Post by FrustratedMonky »

RegW wrote: post #33
FrustratedMonky wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such a delicate balance. The US 'free speech over everything', also allows anti-science and conspiracy theories. But this UK example, seems to be a good example why allowing all the US Crazy is better option.

What exactly is the example? Sorry, I'm in the UK so I haven't read the article that the author has decided to block my access to.

That block is the example.

The author has said, he blocked it because of UK regulations.

If UK is making authors be defensive and block their own stuff, or have legal charges, it is little backwards to blame the authors for the blocking.

Re: Bullshit About Bullshit Machines [pdf]

#42

Post by rickydroll »

projektfu wrote: post #14
ramon156 wrote: post #3

Something that is still not clear to me is, what is conscious even. It references the Chinese Room experiment: > Suppose that artificial intelligence research has succeeded in programming a computer to behave as if it understands Chinese. The machine accepts Chinese characters as input, carries out each instruction of the program step by step, and then produces Chinese characters as output. The machine does this so p…

I think these questions were addressed by Searle[1]. His argument is not that AI is impossible, it's that the existence of surprisingly human-like behavior doesn't turn a non-cognitive system into a cognitive one. The strong AI hypothesis is that you can make a computational system where, if its output is similar to what a human would produce by cognition, the system must model cognition. The Chinese room is an argum…

Which category do Bumblebees play with balls fit into?

https://www.cnet.com/science/biology/bumblebees-like-playing...

Re: Bullshit About Bullshit Machines [pdf]

#43

Post by mojuba »

nh23423fefe wrote: post #28
mojuba wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But what makes a human mind more "understanding"? If you view understanding as knowledge + the ability to apply it , everything falls into its place. The Chinese room can't apply the knowledge that it has, even theoretically.

That's not true. The Chinese room is no different than an immobile Chinese person. Leveraging ability gets you nothing.

An immobile Chinese person was once mobile and knew how to apply knowledge.

Re: Bullshit About Bullshit Machines [pdf]

#44

Post by projektfu »

rickydroll wrote: post #42
projektfu wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think these questions were addressed by Searle[1]. His argument is not that AI is impossible, it's that the existence of surprisingly human-like behavior doesn't turn a non-cognitive system into a cognitive one. The strong AI hypothesis is that you can make a computational system where, if its output is similar to what a human would produce by cognition, the system must model cognition. The Chinese room is an argum…

Which category do Bumblebees play with balls fit into? https://www.cnet.com/science/biology/bumblebees-like-playing...

Aliens

Re: Bullshit About Bullshit Machines [pdf]

#45

Post by nh23423fefe »

mojuba wrote: post #43
nh23423fefe wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not true. The Chinese room is no different than an immobile Chinese person. Leveraging ability gets you nothing.

An immobile Chinese person was once mobile and knew how to apply knowledge.

The immobile Chinese room was once a mobile Chinese room.

You're refutation isn't there. There isn't anything that distinguishes a Chinese room from a Chinese person. You submit Chinese text and get Chinese answers.

You say understanding only exists in humans. That's special pleading not an explanation.

Re: Bullshit About Bullshit Machines [pdf]

#46

Post by mojuba »

nh23423fefe wrote: post #45
mojuba wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An immobile Chinese person was once mobile and knew how to apply knowledge.

The immobile Chinese room was once a mobile Chinese room. You're refutation isn't there. There isn't anything that distinguishes a Chinese room from a Chinese person. You submit Chinese text and get Chinese answers. You say understanding only exists in humans. That's special pleading not an explanation.

Ask your Chinese room what left and right means. Also: near and far, heavy and light, hot and cold. When it comes up with definitions through other concepts, ask what those things mean, etc.

Re: Bullshit About Bullshit Machines [pdf]

#47

Post by grantcas »

ramon156 wrote: post #3

Something that is still not clear to me is, what is conscious even. It references the Chinese Room experiment: > Suppose that artificial intelligence research has succeeded in programming a computer to behave as if it understands Chinese. The machine accepts Chinese characters as input, carries out each instruction of the program step by step, and then produces Chinese characters as output. The machine does this so p…

[dead]

Re: Bullshit About Bullshit Machines [pdf]

#49

Post by nh23423fefe »

mojuba wrote: post #46
nh23423fefe wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The immobile Chinese room was once a mobile Chinese room. You're refutation isn't there. There isn't anything that distinguishes a Chinese room from a Chinese person. You submit Chinese text and get Chinese answers. You say understanding only exists in humans. That's special pleading not an explanation.

Ask your Chinese room what left and right means. Also: near and far, heavy and light, hot and cold. When it comes up with definitions through other concepts, ask what those things mean, etc.

You don't understand the thought experiment.

Re: Bullshit About Bullshit Machines [pdf]

#50

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

estimator7292 wrote: post #19
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds more like a self-imposed penalty by the author. I mean I can read most of the world internet without such a message so I don't know what it even means.

This is what the UK government wants. Kyle has spent an insane amount of effort to get answers from OFCOM, got none, and as such blocks the UK for self-preservation. The UK wants to fine non-citizens for violating online purity rules, so this is the result. Blame the UK for this bullshit. The rules say you must geoblock the UK or be fined, and then sometimes you still get fined anyway.

I have no problem blaming the UK government for all sorts of bullshit, but in this case I don't understand who says the UK has to be geoblocked. I can read literally hundreds of thousands of websites on the internets, it's just this one that seems to have a problem.

My educated guess is that the author is just being precious because he disagrees with the UK Online Safety Act. Everyone else seems to sort of ignore it and move on, so all that this does is that I can't read his site from the UK.

Or, rather, I could use a VPN but I can see here: https://archive.ph/iYLUO that it's a pdf article on some AI stuff. A previous article from the same site posted on HN (https://archive.ph/eXuD0) was also some commentary on using AI.

So is the author implying that the Online Safety Act will cause him to be fined for a couple of articles on AI, or what? What's supposed to be so objectionable to the Online Safety Act on his website that compels him to block the UK from it?

I mean, I'm asking because I really can't tell.

Post reply on HN