Glad to see Searle's Chinese Room mentioned early on in the paper. "Syntax is not sufficient for semantics," no matter how much compute we throw at the problem.
My very amateur view is that until the underlying compute architecture and substrate resembles artificial biology more than silicon, we wont get there.
The latest advances in AI have given me even more appreciation of biology and evolution. It's incredible what the human brain can do with about 20 watts of power, barely enough to power a lightbulb, in comparison to what it takes to run even our most basic LLM models.
Comments
Glad to see Searle's Chinese Room mentioned early on in the paper. "Syntax is not sufficient for semantics," no matter how much compute we throw at the problem.
My very amateur view is that until the underlying compute architecture and substrate resembles artificial biology more than silicon, we wont get there.
The latest advances in AI have given me even more appreciation of biology and evolution. It's incredible what the human brain can do with about 20 watts of power, barely enough to power a lightbulb, in comparison to what it takes to run even our most basic LLM models.
Hofstadter and Dennett have taken great pains to try to debunk Searle. No love lost in that corner of the philosophical world.