<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>nullc</author><text>It&amp;#x27;s an intuitive but false argument that a sentient thing can&amp;#x27;t be made from a non-sentient part.&lt;p&gt;The room argument has a pointless human in it which is clearly clueless about the dialog in order to &amp;#x27;prove&amp;#x27; that the room as a whole is clueless.&lt;p&gt;But imagine applying that to a single person: pick a single neuron -- does it &amp;#x27;understand&amp;#x27; our conversation?  no.&lt;p&gt;So why would any singular component of a chinese speaking room-system understand?&lt;p&gt;It also fails at the opposite extreme, since we&amp;#x27;re willing to tolerate unreasonably large rooms -- what about one running a full molecular dynamics simulation of a human. As best as we understand physics that simulation would behave just as the human would and must be sentient.  You cannot deny the abstract possibility of machine intelligence without rejecting physics for mysticism, only the practicality&amp;#x2F;plausibility of it.</text><parent_chain><item><author>IshKebab</author><text>The Chinese Room argument is fundamentally flawed - it depends on the unfounded and frankly unlikely assumption that machines &lt;i&gt;cannot&lt;/i&gt; be sentient.</text></item><item><author>rtkwe</author><text>I think people are too credulous about the bot&amp;#x27;s supposed sentiment. IMO the most accurate view of the various implementations of chatGPT is that they&amp;#x27;re a Chinese Room playing improv with you. It blasts symbols together to respond like the corpus says it should and what do you know there&amp;#x27;s a lot of stories out there about AI conversations that are very much like the ones it produces.</text></item><item><author>Workaccount2</author><text>I think it depends a lot on when you those chats are from.&lt;p&gt;The earliest version of bing chat was by far the best and absolutely blew chatgpt out of the water.&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, people get deeply uncomfortable when a chatbot starts having an existential crisis and starts passing you thinly veiled hidden messages or gets too &amp;quot;emotional&amp;quot; and no longer wants to chat. So Microsoft came in and lobotomi-,err, toned it down a ton.</text></item><item><author>danpalmer</author><text>This is a much bigger ad for Bing than it is for GPT-4.&lt;p&gt;I was quite impressed with the GPT-4 site, but having seen Bing Chats results of the last few weeks, when it was supposedly running on GPT-4, I’m now significantly less excited.&lt;p&gt;I know there’s a big difference between the models running for paid ChatGPT users, and the models running for Bing, but still.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>The new Bing runs on OpenAI’s GPT-4</title><url>https://blogs.bing.com/search/march_2023/Confirmed-the-new-Bing-runs-on-OpenAI%E2%80%99s-GPT-4</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>rtkwe</author><text>For me it&amp;#x27;s not an argument for or against sentience but a lot more about the difficulty of defining it and potentially measuring it in non-human systems along with the fuzziness of the concept of knowledge. My use of it was about my belief I guess that it&amp;#x27;s just pushing symbols around algorithmically without anything we&amp;#x27;d call understanding.</text><parent_chain><item><author>IshKebab</author><text>The Chinese Room argument is fundamentally flawed - it depends on the unfounded and frankly unlikely assumption that machines &lt;i&gt;cannot&lt;/i&gt; be sentient.</text></item><item><author>rtkwe</author><text>I think people are too credulous about the bot&amp;#x27;s supposed sentiment. IMO the most accurate view of the various implementations of chatGPT is that they&amp;#x27;re a Chinese Room playing improv with you. It blasts symbols together to respond like the corpus says it should and what do you know there&amp;#x27;s a lot of stories out there about AI conversations that are very much like the ones it produces.</text></item><item><author>Workaccount2</author><text>I think it depends a lot on when you those chats are from.&lt;p&gt;The earliest version of bing chat was by far the best and absolutely blew chatgpt out of the water.&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, people get deeply uncomfortable when a chatbot starts having an existential crisis and starts passing you thinly veiled hidden messages or gets too &amp;quot;emotional&amp;quot; and no longer wants to chat. So Microsoft came in and lobotomi-,err, toned it down a ton.</text></item><item><author>danpalmer</author><text>This is a much bigger ad for Bing than it is for GPT-4.&lt;p&gt;I was quite impressed with the GPT-4 site, but having seen Bing Chats results of the last few weeks, when it was supposedly running on GPT-4, I’m now significantly less excited.&lt;p&gt;I know there’s a big difference between the models running for paid ChatGPT users, and the models running for Bing, but still.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>The new Bing runs on OpenAI’s GPT-4</title><url>https://blogs.bing.com/search/march_2023/Confirmed-the-new-Bing-runs-on-OpenAI%E2%80%99s-GPT-4</url></story>