News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The Chinese Room Argument by ThomPete on Saturday January 09, 2016 @01:57PM (#10872384)
Exactly.

I have always found it ironic that while most scientifically minded people accept the idea that out of inanimate matter came single cells then multicell organisms, then simple plant and animal life, then more complex life and in the end us.

But when it comes to the idea that this is somehow the end, that it's not possible to be more than us then they start arguing like religious people did with Darwins theories.

We are special but there is nothing what so ever that says that we wont be superseeded. In fact if genes are somehow carriers of information it looks like technology would be a much better carrier. And if you like me believe technology is a part of nature then it's obvious were we are heading.

But for now we just don't know and thats ok. We will figure it out with time. The Chinese Room however brings nothing constructive or conclusive to this debate.

Re:The Chinese Room Argument by stickfigure on Saturday January 09, 2016 @04:38PM (#10872988)
Using the word superceeded feels like the other side of the same judgement trap. We don't know what a strong AI would be like. Better? Hard to define, let alone predict.
Re:The Chinese Room Argument by ThomPete on Saturday January 09, 2016 @06:52PM (#10873408)
It doesn't matter what it would be like, what matters is that it's going to be stronger than us in many ways no matter how we turn that around if it is indeed going to appear.