There’s a distinction in behavior of a human and a Chinese room when things go wrong—when the rule book doesn’t cover the case at hand.
I agree that a hypothetical perfectly-functioning Chinese room is, tautologically, impossible to distinguish from a real person who speaks Chinese, but that’s a thought experiment, not something that can actually exist. There’ll remain places where the “behavior” breaks down in ways that would be surprising from a human who’s actually paying as much attention as they’d need to be to have been interacting the way they had been until things went wrong.
That, in fact, is exactly where the difference lies: the LLM is basically always not actually “paying attention” or “thinking” (those aren’t things it does) but giving automatic responses, so you see failures of a sort that a human might also exhibit when following a social script (yes, we do that, you’re right), but not in the same kind of apparently-highly-engaged context unless the person just had a stroke mid-conversation or something—because the LLM isn’t engaged, because being-engaged isn’t a thing it does. When it’s getting things right and seeming to be paying a lot of attention to the conversation, it’s not for the same reason people give that impression, and the mimicking of present-ness works until the rule book goes haywire and the ever-gibbering player-piano behind it is exposed.
> the “behavior” breaks down in ways that would be surprising from a human who’s actually paying as much attention as they’d need to be to have been interacting the way they had been until things went wrong.
That's an interesting angle. Though of course we're not surprised by human behavior because that's where our expectations of understanding come from. If we were used to dealing with perfectly-correctly-understanding super-intelligences, then normal humans would look like we don't understand much and our deliberate thinking might be no more accurate than the super-intelligence's absent-minded automatic responses. Thus we would conclude that humans are never really thinking or understanding anything.
I agree that default LLM output makes them look like they're thinking like a human more than they really are. I think mistakes are shocking more because our expectation of someone who talks confidently is that they're not constantly revealing themselves to be an obvious liar. But if you take away the social cues and just look at the factual claims they provide, they're not obviously not-understanding vs humans are-understanding.
I would argue maybe people also are not thinking but simply processing. It is known that most of what we do and feel goes automatically (subconsciously).
But even more, maybe consciousness is an invention of our 'explaining self', maybe everything is automatic. I'm convinced this discussion is and will stay philosophical and will never get any conclusion.
Yeah, I’m not much interested in “what’s consciousness?” but I do think the automatic-versus-thinking distinction matters for understanding what LLMs do, and what we might expect them to be able to do, and when and to what degree we need to second-guess them.
A human doesn’t just confidently spew paragraphs legit-looking but entirely wrong crap, unless they’re trying to deceive or be funny—an LLM isn’t trying to do anything, though, there’s no motivation, it doesn’t like you (it doesn’t like—it doesn’t it, one might even say), sometimes it definitely will just give you a beautiful and elaborate lie simply because its rulebook told it to, in a context and in a way that would be extremely weird if a person did it.
I agree that a hypothetical perfectly-functioning Chinese room is, tautologically, impossible to distinguish from a real person who speaks Chinese, but that’s a thought experiment, not something that can actually exist. There’ll remain places where the “behavior” breaks down in ways that would be surprising from a human who’s actually paying as much attention as they’d need to be to have been interacting the way they had been until things went wrong.
That, in fact, is exactly where the difference lies: the LLM is basically always not actually “paying attention” or “thinking” (those aren’t things it does) but giving automatic responses, so you see failures of a sort that a human might also exhibit when following a social script (yes, we do that, you’re right), but not in the same kind of apparently-highly-engaged context unless the person just had a stroke mid-conversation or something—because the LLM isn’t engaged, because being-engaged isn’t a thing it does. When it’s getting things right and seeming to be paying a lot of attention to the conversation, it’s not for the same reason people give that impression, and the mimicking of present-ness works until the rule book goes haywire and the ever-gibbering player-piano behind it is exposed.