The Chinese room argument is about understanding, not emotions. There is a large body of literature on the use and evolutionary benefit of emotion. While you can make an analogy to see if a system can have emotions the link between understanding is not trivial. For example, animals show emotion but don’t have the same understanding that a human may have. I don’t think you need to have understanding to have emotions. So the Chinese room argument is shoe horned in without making it clear what your argument is.

Well to be precise the pretraining is prevented by this but the online post training does have this issue. The reinforcement learning trials show some sort of automation but I am not aware of any unsupervised methods that have been as successful as the latest batches of llms — haven’t been in this field for a while so honestly dunno.

My read is that the user is saying that creating a world view contains trial and error. Online learning if you will. With the current setup this learning is very much not like this. While that makes a human to machine analogy I am also not too convinced by this reasoning. Just allow for a larger time lag and then the inference and learning is at the same scale.

This is not what the Chinese room is about.