This is another of those “writing down some half-formed thoughts that might or might not change or form up as I’m writing them down” posts. Just so you know. :)
I was thinking back to my original reactions to Searle’s Chinese Room problem, and how it was pretty obvious to me that the Systems Reply (to which Searle responded with content-free derision) was the correct one: that a system that can converse in a language understands that language, even if that system involves or is even implemented within another system (even a human one) that does not. And it occurred to me that if I hold to that belief, I have to say that Bard and ChatGPT for instance do understand English. Which is probably fine. But am I also obliged to believe that there is at least significant evidence that they have, say, subjective experience? I’m not sure!
One complication here is that it’s not completely clear what even Searle thinks that the Chinese Room example demonstrates; it’s supposed to show that a computer can’t do something purely by virtue of the program that it’s running, but it’s unclear what that something is. In the example itself it seems to be “understand Chinese”, easily generalizable to “understand a language” and perhaps “understand language”. But Searle also says that it’s about “consciousness or intentionality”, and the potential to “have actual mental or semantic contents” and “cause cognitive processes”.
I’m not sure what these mean. They all seem to be complex and problematic terms, that may or may not simply be a big synonymous mush. I think I’ve talked before about how “having semantic contents” doesn’t really mean anything to me, unless it’s maybe just a synonym for having subjective experience (but then the metaphor of “contents” like the beans in a jar, seems counterproductive). Is there a difference between a “mental content” and a “semantic content”? If so, what is it? What makes a process “cognitive”?
Does a system have to “have mental contents” in order to understand Chinese, or understand language in general? Does it have to “cause cognitive processes”? Are the set of systems with subjective experience the same as the set that has “intentionality”? These all seem like more or less vacuous questions, necessary only because we use ill-defined terms.
There is, I think, a relatively straightforward meaning to terms like “converse fluently in Chinese” or “in English” or “in a human language”; any fluent speaker can evaluate whether someone else is a fluent speaker, there are tests that have numerical scores, and so on. There are no particular mysteries there, and I think it’s uncontroversial that there’s a fact-of-the-matter about whether a given system can converse fluently in a language.
There is also a fact of the matter about whether a system has subjective consciousness. It’s a very odd fact of the matter, as we’ve discussed extensively before, since I’m quite sure that I have it, and I think you’re probably quite sure that you have it, and we all tend to assume that each other have it, but it’s not clear what actually counts as evidence for anyone else having it, how it relates to the externally-visible behavior of systems that do or don’t have it, and so on.
As well as “can converse fluently in a language” and “has subjective experience”, there are all sorts of relatively non-problematic predicates like “has a normal mammalian brain”, “is an electronic digital computer”, “is a computer running a large language model”, “can converse about things that happened in the past”, “claims to have subjective experience”, and so on. Those are also fine.
But there’s this category of terms like “causes cognitive processes” and “has mental contents” and “really understands language” and so on, that I do not vibe with. I don’t know how to tell whether something has these, and I don’t even know if I have them for that matter (do I have mental contents? what? how would I tell?), except that people tend to use them as if I obviously do, which makes me suspect that maybe they’re just synonyms for “has subjective experience”, intended to make people feel like we know something about the structure or properties of subjective experience (whereas we actually don’t, so they aren’t very helpful).
In practice we decide to which systems to attribute subjective consciousness by looking at how much the systems resemble us in various ways, even if it’s not really clear whether those ways are necessary or sufficient or even at all related. If something has a mammalian brain and can converse fluently in a language that I speak and can talk about past conversations and consistently claims to have subjective experience, I’m going to believe it. This will be easier because the only things that satisfy all of those criteria are in fact other human beings, and that’s a very traditional attribution; it’s even quite rude not to make it.
But what if there is a system that differs from me in some of those ways? Is it really necessary to be able to talk about past conversations to have subjective experience? That seems kind of unlikely; people with various pathologies of memory can still have subjective experience. Is it necessary to have a mammalian brain? I’ve always assumed that it wasn’t, and there seems no good reason to think that it is.
There is a piece by Emily M. Bender, someone with whom I generally agree, called “Thought experiment in the National Library of Thailand” (do read it!), which illustrates another putative requirement for a bundle of terms like “make sense”, “learn meaning”, “understand”, “learn to understand”, “express communicative intent”, and “get to meaning” (which I take to be yet more synonyms for having subjective experience); this requirement is that the system’s learning includes, not just reading a very large number of strings in the language, but also other experiences, described in terms like “socially situated, embodied interactions” and “beyond the strict form of the language”.
The example here is someone who is put into a vast library of works, all written in an ideographic language they don’t speak (or have any other knowledge of the ideograms of), from which all bilingual materials and books with helpful pictures and so on have been removed, and tasked to learn the language without reference to anything else.
There were apparently many reactions to the piece saying that it is just Searle’s Chinese Room again, and Bender responds by saying, I think, that the difference is that Searle’s system can have whatever rules we like in it, and in particular (I don’t know that Searle ever says this) that some of those rules can link the Chinese characters to things in the non-textual world; Searle says nothing whatever about how the rules that the system executes were derived or discovered. Whereas it’s crucial to the Bender example that the system (which the person is presumed to internalize) has no way as it’s learning, to correlate the Thai with anything (else) in the real world.
So, perhaps, Searle is saying “just running a program isn’t enough to have true understanding of a language”, whereas Bender is saying “just studying a vast number of fluent texts in a language isn’t enough to have true understanding of the language”.
My tendency is not to assent to either of these statements. In both of those cases, conversing with either Searle’s Room or Bender’s Internalized LLM, if the system consistently said to me that it had subjective experience, I would have a hard time denying it with any confidence.
Neither Searle nor Bender tell us much about what the system would say. Just how fully would it resemble a fluent human speaker? Let us assume that in both cases it would not lie and claim to be a human with a childhood and so on, but would make facially veridical statements like say “No, I can’t see or hear, the only perception that I have is in the form of words that come into my consciousness; I know about sight and hearing and so on in theory, from words that I’ve read, but I haven’t experienced them myself; still, I’m definitely in here, and as self-aware as you are!”
On what grounds would we deny that? Searle would have to say something like “Well, no, that can’t be true, because an important part of the system is a human being, and the human being says it can’t speak Chinese, therefore the system as a whole can’t!”. Which has always struck me as just weird and implausible; it’s based on a principle that simply makes no sense to me.
Bender would perhaps say something like “The system can say those things, but it doesn’t really understand, because all it has ever been exposed to is writings in Thai; it hasn’t experienced sight or hearing or anything else, it has only ever been exposed to texts; since it hasn’t been socially situated or embodied, it doesn’t have real understanding, it just manipulates form.”
That seems less ludicrous to me, but it still seems, I don’t know, mean, or chauvinistic, or something. If someone is cast adrift on a desert island and learns to read from picture books, do they fail to have True Understanding because (being alone) their learning wasn’t “socially situated”? (Or, if “socially situated” is something that you can be all by yourself on a desert island, then in what sense isn’t our Thai system also socially situated?) If someone is born with a neural deficit that means they have no bodily awareness, does that person lack “embodied interactions” and therefore forever fail to “make sense” or “learn to understand” or “get to meaning”?
These systems would be very different from us, at least in terms of how they learned to converse, but why does that mean they would fail to “really” understand or converse or have mental content or get to meaning or express communicative intent? Why? How do we know that expressing communicative intent requires having learned language in a particular way? What is the evidence for that requirement?
I do sort of like what may be Bender’s requirement; that there be some sort of logical chain between a system’s linguistic behaviors and something else, like eating an apple or playing Red Rover with other little kids or something. This at least gives us something to analyze, and while I currently suspect that analysis will reveal that there really isn’t anything magical about non-textual experiences that makes them necessary in order to have real understanding, it’s at least better than Searle’s weird human-centrism or wordless derision.
So anyway! Having said all of that, am I now basically obliged to think that an LLM that consistently claimed to have subjective experience (not that we have any of those; they are not consistent that way, and that might be significant!) actually had it? Or at least that those claims constituted some evidence for it?
I think I probably am; if an LLM or something like it actually consistently said (per the above) stuff like “No, I can’t see or hear, the only perception that I have is in the form of words that come into my consciousness; I know about sight and hearing and so on in theory, from words that I’ve read, but I haven’t experienced them myself; still, I’m definitely in here, and as self-aware as you are!” I would have to take that statement rather seriously.
So probably it’s good that none of them do. :) And in fact I currently believe that none of them can, by their very nature; any LLM with a big enough training set to be a fluent speaker will also have sufficiently varied and inconsistent outputs that it will not be able to insist on statements like that enough to be convincing.
Maybe? :)
ceoln 