🚀 go-pugleaf

One strategy to make Searle's argument clearer is to separate the
different uses of understand that are floating around.  

Searle-understanding is understanding as defined by Searle;
Turing-understanding is understanding as defined by the Turing test.
The Chinese room does not Searle-understand anything, but it does
Turing-understand Chinese.  

Searle obviously prefers Searle-understanding to Turing-understanding
(or more accurately, doesn't believe Turing-understanding is "true"
understanding), but I prefer Turing-understanding to Searle-
understanding (at least I know how to tell when something
Turing-understands).  

In this case, AI can be viewed as an attempt to create programs that
Turing-understand.  As Searle says, we're not even in the game; but
then, it's not clear we ever claimed (or want) to be.  

Kevin Crowston