本文通过两个孩子的对话和两位化学家的讨论，探讨了人工智能是否真正理解“水”的本质。孩子们争论着AI是否真正理解“水”的概念，而化学家则从科学的角度解释了“水”的本质，并指出人类对“水”的理解也仅仅是基于感官经验和统计关系，而非真正的化学本质。

👧👦 **两个孩子的对话** 第一个孩子认为AI理解“水”的概念，因为它能够将“水”与“泼洒”和“湿”等概念联系起来。而第二个孩子则认为AI仅仅理解词语之间的关系，没有真正理解“水”的本质，因为它无法将“水”与现实世界中的视觉、触觉等感官体验联系起来。 这个对话引发了关于AI是否具备真正理解能力的思考。AI可以学习和识别词语之间的关系，但它是否能够像人类一样，将这些词语与现实世界中的具体事物和概念联系起来，进而形成真正的理解？ 🤔 **深度思考：**AI学习和理解的方式与人类截然不同，它们无法像人类一样拥有感官体验，也无法像人类一样进行抽象思考。因此，AI的“理解”可能仅仅停留在对词语和数据之间的关系的识别上，而无法真正理解事物的本质。

🧪🔬 **两位化学家的讨论** 两位化学家从科学的角度探讨了“水”的本质。他们指出，水是由两个氢原子和一个氧原子组成的，而孩子们对“水”的理解仅仅是基于感官经验和统计关系，并不能真正理解水的化学本质。 第一个化学家认为，孩子对“水”的理解已经足够，因为她知道水的颜色、味道等感官特征，能够运用这些知识来预测和应对现实世界中的情况。而第二个化学家则认为，孩子的理解仅仅是感官数据之间的关系，她无法将这些关系与水的化学本质联系起来。 🤔 **深度思考：**人类对世界的理解也并非完全基于科学知识，而是建立在感官经验和统计关系之上。我们用语言来描述世界，但语言本身只是符号系统，它无法完全准确地反映世界的真实情况。因此，人类对世界的理解也存在着局限性。

🧠 **理解的本质** 本文通过两个孩子的对话和两位化学家的讨论，探讨了理解的本质。我们对事物的理解并非完全基于科学知识，而是建立在感官经验、统计关系和语言符号之上。AI可以学习和识别这些关系，但它是否能够像人类一样形成真正的理解，仍然是一个值得探讨的问题。 🤔 **深度思考：**理解是一个复杂的认知过程，它涉及到感官体验、抽象思考、语言符号等多个方面。AI的理解能力还处于发展阶段，它需要不断学习和进化，才能更好地理解世界。

🤔 **启发：**人类对世界的理解始终存在局限性，我们需要不断探索和思考，才能更深入地理解世界。

[With apologies to Putnam, Pope, and all of you]

Two children are reading a text written by an AI:

The hobbits splashed water in each other’s faces until they were both sopping wet

One child says to the other “Wow! After reading some text, the AI understands what water is!”

The second child says “It doesn’t really understand.”

The first child says “Sure it does! It understands that water is the sort of substance that splashes. It understands that people who are splashed with water get wet. What else is left to understand?”

The second child says “All it understands is relationships between words. None of the words connect to reality. It doesn’t have any internal concept of what water looks like or how it feels to be wet. Only that the letters W-A-T-E-R, when appearing near the letters S-P-L-A-S-H bear a certain statistical relationship to the letters W-E-T.”

The first child starts to cry.

Two chemists are watching the children argue with each other. The first chemist says “Wow! After seeing an AI, these kids can debate the nature of water!”

The second chemist says “Ironic, isn’t it? After all, the children themselves don’t understand what water is! Water is two hydrogen atoms plus one oxygen atom, and neither of them know!”

The first chemist answers “Come on. The child knows enough about water to say she understands it. She knows what it looks like. She knows what it tastes like. That’s pretty much the basics of water.”

The second chemist answers “Those are just relationships between pieces of sense-data. The child knows that (visual perception of clear shiny thing) = (tactile perception of cold wetness) = (gustatory perception of refreshingness). And she can predict statistical relationships, like that if she sees someone throw a bucket of (visual perception of clear shiny thing) at her, she will soon feel (tactile perception of cold miserable sopping wetness). She uses the word “water” as a concept-hook that links all of these relationships together and makes predicting the world much easier. But no matter how well she masters these facts, she can never connect them to H2O or any other real chemical facts about the world beyond mere sense-data.”