The Chinese Room Argument

John Searle developed a Chinese debate in the early 1980s to try to prove that the computer is not a cognitive operating system. In short, despite the rapid increase in the infinite possibilities of knowledge by the advent of artificial and computing systems, Searle uses Chinese arguments to prove that the computer is not cognitively independent I will. John Searle presents two ways of thinking about computer-independent cognition. These ideas include definitions of weak AI and strong AI.

If you are reading this article, you are likely to know what the discussion of the Chinese room is. If not, read the wiki, it is very easy. Imagine that a powerful artificial intelligence was built and placed in a Chinese room. It runs perfectly and passes the typical Turing test. I do not know if anyone is in the room. I want to assume two ideas: External researchers can map all possible inputs and outputs and all possible interconnections within the Chineese room algorithm given infinite time and resources. Therefore, he can reproduce the algorithm indoors and prove that there is an algorithm, not a human

To explain his argument, Searle used the so-called "Chinese Room" argument. The simulation of the Chinese room began with a person who does not understand Chinese. Then put this person in a room filled with Chinese symbol basket. In addition, this person is provided with a rule book (in a language that he or she can understand) matching Chinese symbols and other Chinese symbols. Rules only recognize these characters based on geometry and do not need to understand them. Next, in this discussion, we ask someone outside the room to imagine understanding Chinese and hand over that symbol to some kind of problem. In response, the person manipulates the symbol according to the given rule and returns some symbols. In addition, this rule book makes this person's answer indistinguishable from Chinese native.

The claims of the Searles Chinese room are as follows: English speaking people do not understand that the Chinese live in the room. According to the (meaningless) rule book, this person manipulates the symbol string input from "entrance hole" and places the result in "exit hole". In fact, the input is a meaningful question in Chinese, the output is Chinese and a reasonable answer. For external observers, the whole system seems to understand Chinese. Searle awarded it in the Turing test. But the inside people do not know anything about Chinese. Therefore, understand mechanical operations (symbol strings) that can not include grammar. Understanding the necessity of (real) intention, this system is missing. In contrast, Turing gives an argument. Turing argues that any machine capable of fooling the questioner is "smart", but argues that "the conscious artificial intelligence (AI) research community occupies Turin" .