# Artificial Intelligence question.
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-question/439655
**Category:** Factual Questions
**Created:** [February 29, 2008, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-question/439655 "2008-02-29T17:31:51Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 3
### Author:  [@alterego](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alterego)
#### Post date: [March 2, 2008, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-question/439655/41 "2008-03-02T00:17:56Z")
[QUOTE=Dominic Mulligan]
Further, it’s not certain that the brain contains the backwards connections that are necessary for ANN training, via backwards propagation.
What is your link supposed to prove?
[/QUOTE]
The learning algorithm used in the Emergent simulator is not back propagation, it’s Leabra, a combination of error driven and hebbian learning. It’s based on the principles of Long Term Potentiation/Depression and is biologically plausible. There are several approaches to cognitive modeling; one tries to discover the general principles that guide learning, and one works to recreate the brain from the bottom up. Computational Cognitive Neuroscience attempts the former, IBM attempts the latter. These two approaches will meet somewhere in the middle.
Characterizing all neural network models as simple linear algebra transformations (SVD/PCA) is disingenuous. Henry Markram of the Blue Brain project has simulated 15 different types of neurons on Blue Gene/L and hopes to advance the resolution of his simulation to that of molecules so that he might better study gene expression and protein synthesis in neural models. The electrical properties of his models to date are almost identical to those found in brains and are on the scale of a rat brain; there is every reason to believe that he is on the right track.
Another recent advance in biologically plausible simulations of learning in humans is the [PVLV system for reinforcement learning](http://psych-www.colorado.edu/~oreilly/pubs-abstr.html#OReillyFrankHazyEtAl07), which is an extremely detailed exploration of dopaminergic learning in the brain that follows the anatomy as precisely as possible. Unlike your claim that the more like the brain neural network models are, the worse they perform, leading researchers have found the opposite and are ramping up their efforts. Stanford’s NeuroGrid is an indication of this; while simulated neurons face the formidable challenge of a geometric increase in the communication costs of sender and receiver-based models, emulated neurons that are developed in silico are able to sidestep that challenge. Considering that they are based on the same electrical properties of the brain, I see little reason to suspect a priori that they will encounter insurmountable roadblocks. IBM’s molecular models of neural networks will discover the pieces of the low-level biology that are critical to learning, Computational Cognitive Neuroscience will discover the high level learning mechanisms, and then we can put them on chips and provide plausible constraints and guidance to evolutionary algorithms, letting that process once again figure out the details. Only this time we’ll b watching. I have yet to see evidence that a) this is not the strategy being taken and b) there are any substantial reasons to believe it will not work.
---
### Author:  [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)
#### Post date: [March 2, 2008, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-question/439655/42 "2008-03-02T00:22:50Z")
I was hoping that I’d get to add to the discussion.
[QUOTE=Dominic Mulligan]
Further, it’s not certain that the brain contains the backwards connections that are necessary for ANN training, via backwards propagation.
[/quote]
That explains part of why your objection isn’t quite right. Not all ANNs use back-prop. For instance, your machine learning lecturer has a section on Hopfield networks, which IIRC implement a feedforward “energy minimization” scheme. IIRC, Rumelhart did a lot of work here if you want a name to look up for more information.
In addition, wasn’t there some work – probably by Grossberg at Boston University – that demonstrated that human memory was accurately described by adaptive resonance theory? I don’t recall just how solid the connection (hah!) was, hence the phrase “accurately described” rather than something stronger.
To be clear, I’m only saying you’re wrong because of the absoluteness of your unqualified statement (“_ **nothing** like real brains_”). One research area that I’ve occasionally come across is the attempt to add neuron spiking, hormone modeling, and other biological features to ANNs. AFAIK, none have yet paid dividends, at least partially due to your point about the serial nature of processing. Of course, even if (when?) they do, at some level they’ll still be “nothing” like “real” brains; that’s an argument that I’ll try to avoid as a waste of time.
> [@](#):
>
> What is your link supposed to prove?
ISTM that the link is supposed to show that people are working on improving computational performance via emulating brain structure. Of course, it doesn’t do all that much to undercut (what I perceive as the intent of) your statement about ANNs, which concerns silicon intelligence.
On a related note, I am rather curious about the progress made in using FPGAs in ANNs (cited in that link). I was underwhelmed by FPGAs in the cursory exploration I made into them (different research area, as a technique for fault-tolerance). See, ISTM that one of the major problems – if not **THE** major problem – with ANNs is that they generally have a fully pre-determined structure. Anyone who has worked with them knows the “black art” that is determining an appropriate number of neurons, layers, connections, etc. Although I’ve seen a couple techniques for manipulating the structure (like “neural gas” or pruning connections), nothing comes close to approaching even a small bit of the plasticity and dynamic nature of a brain.
And all this talk of AI, ANNs, and computability ignores arguments like those put forth by Fodor in _The Mind Doesn’t Work That Way_. (Not that I recommend the book, as I found he leaves large swaths of ground ill-explained, at least partially due to his terseness; it is only 100 pages after all. A very dense 100 pages that took me a _long_ time to get through; and I’m still unsure that I actually grok it.) It’s been a couple years, but I think his argument was that even if the brain uses “modules” (as the “computational modularity of mind” theory posits), it fails due to either the case of computational intractibility or that of global vs. local context. Either way, from my (probably muddled) understanding, the issue is with the fact that Turing computation is purely symbol processing – in either case, the theory fails on maintaining the associations related to a given symbol. (This came up in a thread on Pinker a while back…I’ll see if I can dig it up.)
Cool stuff, though. All of it.
---
### Author:  [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)
#### Post date: [March 2, 2008, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-question/439655/43 "2008-03-02T00:51:33Z")
> **[20Q.net Inc.](http://www.20q.net/)**
>
> The original
> online game that spawned the amazing 20Q handheld toy.
---
### Author:  [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)
#### Post date: [March 2, 2008, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-question/439655/44 "2008-03-02T01:01:39Z")
A link to the Pinker thread that I referenced before (from April 2006): [The Blank Slate](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=365725). I don’t recall if the discussion would be all that relevant to this thread or not, as it was specifically centered around the nature vs. nurture debate.
**alterego** – you wouldn’t happen to work with (or know) Mozer, would you? I applied to Boulder for grad school (years ago now) based on his NN work. Got rejected, though, so it wasn’t to be. ☹
At any rate (and as a total hijack, my apologies), it seems that you’re pretty conversant with some state of the art research concerning NNs. Glad to see some more concrete references corresponding to my vague allusions. As someone familiar with that area, might you be able to suggest some need-to-read references? Especially concerning adaptive NNs, if you know of any…that’s a particular interest of mine.
---
### Author:  [@mwbrooks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mwbrooks)
#### Post date: [March 2, 2008, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-question/439655/45 "2008-03-02T01:07:57Z")
[QUOTE=Lemur866]
In other words, if you ask “What did I say about that five minutes ago?” the Chinese Room won’t be able to answer the question unless it is allowed to store information and come up with new output.
[/QUOTE]
You touch a nerve, there. I do OK on IQ tests, for what that’s worth, but I’m often stumped when my wife asks “what did I just tell you?”
I’m not as well read on the subject as all you folks are, but my sense of things is that we’ll have AI when a computer can regularly screw up, see the error, and decide it likes the wrong answer better than the one it was looking for.
---
### Author:  [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)
#### Post date: [March 2, 2008, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-question/439655/46 "2008-03-02T01:23:11Z")
[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
> **[20Q.net Inc.](https://www.20q.net/)**
>
> The original
> online game that spawned the amazing 20Q handheld toy.
[/QUOTE]
As interesting as it is, I’ll ignore the fact that the implementation of 20q is a NN, as it brings to mind an amusing anecdote:
My wife and I were driving from IN to NJ to visit my parents. She decided we’d play 20 questions to pass the time, which I wasn’t all that enthralled with, but hey – 12+ hours of driving will lead to all sorts of diversions. After one round of her asking questions (she got it in about 15, IIRC), it’s my turn to ask, and it went like this:
[ul]
[li] **Me:** Animal, vegetable, or mineral?[/li][li] **Wife:** Vegetable.[/li][li](A really long pause as I think…)[/li][li] **Me:** Is it a Christmas tree?[/li][li] **Wife:** :eek: How did you _do that_?[/li][/ul]
Got it in one (she considers the “animal, vegetable, mineral” question a freebie). Needless to say, we haven’t played since. 😃
---
### Author:  [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)
#### Post date: [March 2, 2008, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-question/439655/47 "2008-03-02T01:32:39Z")
Just for fun, I played 20Q thinking of a Christmas tree. Most of the questions were pretty normal, but it did ask me “Can you control it?” and “Can you love it?”.
---
### Author:  [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)
#### Post date: [March 2, 2008, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-question/439655/48 "2008-03-02T04:06:51Z")
[QUOTE=RaftPeople]
Why would you make a distinction between our mental processes and other animals?
Isn’t it just a continuum of capability with respect to specific attributes?
[/QUOTE]
There is a continuity, no doubt about that. But when we’re talking about intelligence in the sense of consciousness, there is a difference. The difference might be from a richer interconnect structure, or some mutation that allows the brain to think about thoughts, or something else. But just piling on more neurons is unlikely to do it - just like adding more processing power won’t make a computer intelligent.
---
### Author:  [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)
#### Post date: [March 2, 2008, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-question/439655/49 "2008-03-02T04:10:51Z")
[QUOTE=alterego]
It’s fairly clear to me right now that they do in fact lead to intelligence, unless you believe that a) my brain is not a neural network and b) I am not intelligent. The ability to think at a high level is just an abstraction over thinking at lower levels. It takes complicated prefrontal/basal ganglia hardware to implement it, sure, but evolution has had plenty of time to sort out the details and its all based on a common set of learning principles. We’ve been doing paired risk association since we were flatworms, a pretty intelligent thing to do if you want to survive and are sampling new environments with your fancy new locomotion tricks. The behavioral development of intelligence is extremely well documented and we’re working out the details of the biology at the moment, benefiting greatly from the synergy of neuroimaging and modelling techniques. If one simply considers the rate of progress in modelling nervous systems, there is no reason to believe that we won’t be able to within most of our lifetimes. If you’re not aware of this progress, read Dharmedra Modha’s “[How to create a cortical simulator](http://www.almaden.ibm.com/cs/people/dmodha/)”. Modha works for IBM and they are betting big on modelling the brain, throwing the world’s largest supercomputer at the problem, whatever that happens to be at the time.
[/QUOTE]
Piling more bags of flour onto a pile does not make a cake. Neurons are obviously necessary for intelligence, but not sufficient by themselves - unless you think there is some threshold of neuron count where intelligence (and I mean consciousness) begins.
I think I said above that my opinion is that the first AI will be from running a human brain simulator, based on some person - so your links are interesting, and I’ll check them out if I have time.
---
### Author:  [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)
#### Post date: [March 2, 2008, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-question/439655/50 "2008-03-02T04:14:38Z")
[QUOTE=TimeWinder]
A key difference between biological and modern computational structures is parallelism: the brain is massively parallel by any computational standards (each neural path is effectively able to fire whenever it needs to), whereas digital computers are very much less so, even parallel ones. This is part of the issue with neural nets: they’re just not very efficient to implement (basically a set of large matrix multiplications) on serial processors. Neural nets are a simplification and regularization of biological “networks of neurons,” and the messy biological ones have certain advantages.
[/QUOTE]
It depends on what level of primitives you’re talking about. If you consider the neuron to be a function unit, like an adder, then there is limited parallelism because there are a limited number of functional units that can be kept busy (but we’re not using all our brains all the time either.) If a neuron is a gate or flip-flop, then a computer is just as parallel. In fact one of the big problems today is figuring out how to make these things be a little less active in order to save power and reduce heat.
---
### Author:  [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)
#### Post date: [March 2, 2008, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-question/439655/51 "2008-03-02T04:28:56Z")
[QUOTE=Digital Stimulus]
On a related note, I am rather curious about the progress made in using FPGAs in ANNs (cited in that link). I was underwhelmed by FPGAs in the cursory exploration I made into them (different research area, as a technique for fault-tolerance). See, ISTM that one of the major problems – if not **THE** major problem – with ANNs is that they generally have a fully pre-determined structure. Anyone who has worked with them knows the “black art” that is determining an appropriate number of neurons, layers, connections, etc. Although I’ve seen a couple techniques for manipulating the structure (like “neural gas” or pruning connections), nothing comes close to approaching even a small bit of the plasticity and dynamic nature of a brain.
[/QUOTE]
Are people perhaps confusing intelligence with learning? Most non-conscious animals learn, and neural networks certainly do. But when does more learning potential flip over into intelligence. (And the I in AI means our kind of intelligence, not the admittedly high level my dog has.)
When did you last look at FPGAs? They’re getting more powerful and faster all the time with more types of functional units. I haven’t used them much (I did do some testing work a long time ago) but unless you are dealing in really high volumes, they are the way to go. They are much faster than a software solution, almost as flexible, and a hell of a lot cheaper than ASICs, thanks to high mask costs among other things.
---
### Author:  [@alterego](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alterego)
#### Post date: [March 2, 2008, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-question/439655/52 "2008-03-02T04:39:44Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager]
Piling more bags of flour onto a pile does not make a cake. Neurons are obviously necessary for intelligence, but not sufficient by themselves - unless you think there is some threshold of neuron count where intelligence (and I mean consciousness) begins.
I think I said above that my opinion is that the first AI will be from running a human brain simulator, based on some person - so your links are interesting, and I’ll check them out if I have time.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Voyager]
It depends on what level of primitives you’re talking about. If you consider the neuron to be a function unit, like an adder, then there is limited parallelism because there are a limited number of functional units that can be kept busy (but we’re not using all our brains all the time either.) If a neuron is a gate or flip-flop, then a computer is just as parallel. In fact one of the big problems today is figuring out how to make these things be a little less active in order to save power and reduce heat.
[/QUOTE]
I feel like you have conflated intelligence and consciousness, especially if you are referring to P-consciousness (phenomenal consciousness, such what it is like to experience redness). Whether science can explain P-consciousness is a completely different issue in my mind. One that I am willing to talk about, but also one that I have not touched on in this thread. I don’t consider your argument about adding more neurons to be serious, although I did respond to it in another post. Like I said there, the IBM approach of adding more neurons and the CCN approach of using as few neurons as possible will likely meet somewhere in the middle. Nobody believes that cooking up the largest possible bowl of neuron soup will lead to something that we would recognize as “smart like us.”
WRT the second quote, Google Scholar for [sub-threshold activity](http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=neurons+subthreshold+activity). Neurons do lots more besides fire. They are always doing something.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
Most non-conscious animals learn, and neural networks certainly do.
[/quote]
Please give me an example of a non-conscious animal.
---
### Author:  [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)
#### Post date: [March 2, 2008, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-question/439655/53 "2008-03-02T07:30:00Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager]
When did you last look at FPGAs? They’re getting more powerful and faster all the time with more types of functional units.
[/QUOTE]
It was at least three years ago and I feel the need to reiterate that, in addition to now being out of date, it was a very cursory look. While all the good things you say about them are right, my issue (as it relates to the plasticity and adaptibility of the brain) was with the fault tolerance. According to my understanding, there needed to be a circuit schematic stored on the chip in case something went faulty. At best, if I remember it correctly, it was a duplicate FPGA implementation (as found in _Reconfigurable Architecture for Autonomous Self-Repair_, Mitra, _et al_, IEEE Design and Test of Computers, 2004). An amazing bit of hardware, that, but it automatically results in more than double the hardware (being a duplication; maybe compression would lessen that). And it relies on what they refer to as _the precompiled-reconfiguration technique_ (which is just what it says, requiring even more hardware to store at least part of the circuit).
Furthermore, what got me about FPGAs is/was the same complaint that I have with ANNs and brain modeling – what I saw was very much non-dynamic, at least once it was designed and put into operation. As impressive as the work is – and don’t get me wrong, it’s **very** impressive – it’s also very much unlike the brain.
If you recall, I’m a software, not hardware, guy, so I’m perfectly willing to accept that either I was (and remain) ignorant or that _a lot_ of progress has been made. If that’s the case, I’ll ask you the same thing I asked **alterego** – are there any need-to-read references you might suggest?
---
### Author:  [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)
#### Post date: [March 2, 2008, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-question/439655/54 "2008-03-02T07:44:52Z")
[QUOTE=ultrafilter]
Just for fun, I played 20Q thinking of a Christmas tree. Most of the questions were pretty normal, but it did ask me “Can you control it?” and “Can you love it?”.
[/QUOTE]
Ah, but you’ve left out an important detail: _how many questions did it take to get the answer_?
What I thought was very cool about the 20q site was that whoever runs it uses a neural net as the backend. If you’ve seen the hand-held, battery operated version (used to be available at Sharper Image), they took the NN from the website, did some analysis on it to prune it down to the most asked items (IIRC, about 20K answers are stored), then put that on a chip.
Nifty stuff; I hope I didn’t ruin anyone’s marvel by (sort of) exposing its operation.
---
### Author:  [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)
#### Post date: [March 2, 2008, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-question/439655/55 "2008-03-02T11:42:22Z")
[QUOTE=alterego]
Unlike your claim that the more like the brain neural network models are, the worse they perform, leading researchers have found the opposite and are ramping up their efforts.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, you’re right, I’d misremembered what he had said. Here’s his reply:
> [@](#):
>
> What I said was that in the early days a lot of hype went on about the
> fact that neural network were inspired by “neural” models, as if the
> analogy with the brain meant anything in its own right.
>
> It doesn’t, and it isn’t a grounds for accepting or praising the
> technology. Furthermore the analogy was so crude as in reality the
> neurons in a neural network model bare only slight resemblance to
> anything in the brain anyway.
>
> I don’t preclude the possibility that the more brain like things are
> made the better they might perform.
:smack:
---
### Author:  [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)
#### Post date: [March 2, 2008, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-question/439655/56 "2008-03-02T16:16:05Z")
[QUOTE=Lemur866]
The Chinese Room objection is crap, because it implictly disallows the Chinese Room the ability to remember anything. Of course a table of lookups for every possible interaction isn’t going to be intelligent, because as soon as the guy on the other side of the Turing test starts talking about the conversation the Chinese Room will fail. In other words, if you ask “What did I say about that five minutes ago?” the Chinese Room won’t be able to answer the question unless it is allowed to store information and come up with new output.
[/quote]
The memory can be simulated in the set of rules for transcription given to the guy in the room. Such a set of instructions can be written in a way which formally simulates the reading and writing of information to a memory.
It just has to include instructions like “If the first question asked of you was…” or “If the second to last question asked to you was…” Of course in an actual Chinese Room these time-referencing questions would be incredibly more complicated, but nobody said the CR was supposed to be realistic.
> [@](#):
>
> Or, if we allow the Chinese Room to remember and learn, yet still insist that the whole process cannot “really” be conscious because none of the individual components know what they’re doing, then it’s just another way of stating that there is no such thing as consciousness.
Searle’s point was just that _just because_ the guy in the chinese room can spit out intelligently coherent responses, that does not _in itself_ mean he has understanding regarding what he is doing. Searle argued that in this case, it’s clear that the guy doesn’t understand what he’s doing, and so something other than the ability to spit out coherent and intelligent statements is required for understanding. Human brains have that something else. The guy in the CR does not. Searle is saying if we want to do science about understanding, we’re going to need to look for that something else.
> [@](#):
>
> Are the individual neurons in the human brain conscious? Are various sections of the human brain conscious…if I took out a cubic centimeter of brain and kept it alive in a saline solution, would that cubic centimeter be conscious? The individual parts of a human brain aren’t conscious, yet we assert that a human brain IS conscious. To assert that a machine that can store information and learn and converse in natural language couldn’t be conscious simply because it was made of paper and carts and messengers moving scrolls from one bin to another is ludicrious.
But of course that’s not what Searle asserted.
> [@](#):
>
> There isn’t any magic happening in the human brain, the human brain is composed of ordinary matter obeying the ordinary laws of physics. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something.
Again, Searle does not say otherwise.
-FrL-
---
### Author:  [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)
#### Post date: [March 2, 2008, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-question/439655/57 "2008-03-02T17:47:54Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager]
Are people perhaps confusing intelligence with learning? Most non-conscious animals learn, and neural networks certainly do. But when does more learning potential flip over into intelligence. (And the I in AI means our kind of intelligence, not the admittedly high level my dog has.)
[/QUOTE]
I have always assumed the I in AI was a general term that applied to all of the types of intelligence found in animals (and anything that we can mathematically create). Also, I have always assumed that what separates humans from other animals is the extent of our abilities in certain areas. It’s also possible there are mental processes in animals that are far more advanced than our own.
Is there an accepted definition of intelligence w.r.t. AI?
---
### Author:  [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)
#### Post date: [March 2, 2008, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-question/439655/58 "2008-03-02T18:51:19Z")
[QUOTE=RaftPeople]
Is there an accepted definition of intelligence w.r.t. AI?
[/QUOTE]
If there is, I’d sure like to know what it is…
The best one I’ve heard is _Intelligence is whatever computers can’t do yet_. (In case it’s not clear, I’m only semi-serious.)
---
### Author:  [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)
#### Post date: [March 2, 2008, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-question/439655/59 "2008-03-02T19:11:22Z")
[QUOTE=Digital Stimulus]
Ah, but you’ve left out an important detail: _how many questions did it take to get the answer_?
[/QUOTE]
It was under 20, but not by much.
> [@](#):
>
> The best one I’ve heard is _Intelligence is whatever computers can’t do yet_. (In case it’s not clear, I’m only semi-serious.)
Are you sure? It sometimes seems like a large part of the anti-AI crowd uses that as their operational definition.
---
### Author:  [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)
#### Post date: [March 2, 2008, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-question/439655/60 "2008-03-02T19:35:10Z")
[QUOTE=Dominic Mulligan]
See e.g. Searle’s Chinese Room argument for one possible objection.
[/quote]
This argument is interesting because it’s equally seen to support _both_ sides of the issue. (That is, it can be taken to support or refute the notion that humans will eventually create Strong AI.) I was interested in it for a while, too, but it really doesn’t seem to add anything to the debate.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-question/439655.md?page=2)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-question/439655.md?page=4)