RE: https://infosec.exchange/@paco/116504499864795870
Richard Dawkins, looking at a high-definition large-screen TV:
"If this is not a window, what more could it possibly take to convince you it is a window?"
Post
Replies:
6
Answer: The view would change as I move to the left and right.
Objection: But the things in the view are too far away!
Answer: Things become visible and disappear along the left and right edges. Or not.
Example of such a "window," which is really just a television screen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcSjxdQZCss
Sigh, I wrote about exactly that five years ago, almost to the day:
https://tecc.media/claim-gpt3-is-conscious/
@rysiek The Chinese room argument is fairly unconvincing though. It would not be the person mindlessly following a rule book who can speak Chinese, but the system consisting of the rule book (software) and the processor (person in the room). Nobody would argue that a CPU / GPU is conscious either, but this does not logically exclude a computer with suitable software from being conscious. (no, I do not believe modern Chat bots are conscious)
Also, come on, his whole shtick was pointing out that being "convinced" about something is not the same as that something being true.
Funny how suddenly "convinced" is enough of a proof.
@rysiek all I'm getting this is that Dawkins is a shill for AI. Which perfectly tracks with his integrity.
