I'm not sure why you disagree with the Chinese Room argument. I would be interested. I agree that Searle was solely a philosopher who did not take an engineering viewpoint.
Searle's main point is that if I have a book that tells me how to respond and I never learn Chinese, then I do not understand Chinese. If you see a flaw in this reasoning, I am very interested.
My point is just that LLM models are a compression of the content available on the internet equivalent to a rule book. It is definitely fascinating how powerful LLMs are as far as summarization and forming coherent responses to input.
I am a big fan of Kahneman and agree with you that it is will be very interesting to ask GPT-4 the questions in that book.
Searle's main point is that if I have a book that tells me how to respond and I never learn Chinese, then I do not understand Chinese. If you see a flaw in this reasoning, I am very interested.
My point is just that LLM models are a compression of the content available on the internet equivalent to a rule book. It is definitely fascinating how powerful LLMs are as far as summarization and forming coherent responses to input.
I am a big fan of Kahneman and agree with you that it is will be very interesting to ask GPT-4 the questions in that book.