this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2026
938 points (98.6% liked)

Comic Strips

26206 readers
2667 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

Rules
  1. 😇 Be Nice!

    • Treat others with respect and dignity. Friendly banter is okay, as long as it is mutual; keyword: friendly.
  2. 🏘️ Community Standards

    • Comics should be a full story, from start to finish, in one post.
    • Posts should be safe and enjoyable by the majority of community members, both here on lemmy.world and other instances.
    • Any comic that would qualify as raunchy, lewd, or otherwise draw unwanted attention by nosy coworkers, spouses, or family members should be tagged as NSFW.
    • Moderators have final say on what and what does not qualify as appropriate. Use common sense, and if need be, err on the side of caution.
  3. 🧬 Keep it Real

    • Comics should be made and posted by real human beans, not by automated means like bots or AI. This is not the community for that sort of thing.
  4. 📽️ Credit Where Credit is Due

    • Comics should include the original attribution to the artist(s) involved, and be unmodified. Bonus points if you include a link back to their website. When in doubt, use a reverse image search to try to find the original version. Repeat offenders will have their posts removed, be temporarily banned from posting, or if all else fails, be permanently banned from posting.
    • Attributions include, but are not limited to, watermarks, links, or other text or imagery that artists add to their comics to use for identification purposes. If you find a comic without any such markings, it would be a good idea to see if you can find an original version. If one cannot be found, say so and ask the community for help!
  5. 📋 Post Formatting

    • Post an image, gallery, or link to a specific comic hosted on another site; e.g., the author's website.
    • Meta posts about the community should be tagged with [Meta] either at the beginning or the end of the post title.
    • When linking to a comic hosted on another site, ensure the link is to the comic itself and not just to the website; e.g.,
      ✅ Correct: https://xkcd.com/386/
      ❌ Incorrect: https://xkcd.com/
  6. 📬 Post Frequency/SPAM

    • Each user (regardless of instance) may post up to five (5 🖐) comics a day. This can be any combination of personal comics you have written yourself, or other author's comics. Any comics exceeding five (5 🖐) will be removed.
  7. 🏴‍☠️ Internationalization (i18n)

    • Non-English posts are welcome. Please tag the post title with the original language, and include an English translation in the body of the post; e.g.,
      Sí, por favor [Spanish/Español]
  8. 🍿 Moderation

    • We are human, just like most everybody else on Lemmy. If you feel a moderation decision was made in error, you are welcome to reach out to anybody on the moderation team for clarification. Keep in mind that moderation decisions may be final.
    • When reporting posts and/or comments, quote which rule is being broken, and why you feel it broke the rules.
Banned Artists

The following artists are banned from the community.

  1. Jago
  2. Stonetoss
  3. GPrime85

It should be noted that when you make reports, it is your responsibility to provide rational reasoning why something should be removed. Saying it simply breaks community rules is not always good enough.

Web Accessibility

Note: This is not a rule, but a helpful suggestion.

When posting images, you should strive to add alt-text for screen readers to use to describe the image you're posting:

Another helpful thing to do is to provide a transcription of the text in your images, as well as brief descriptions of what's going on. (example)

Web of Links
Other Comic Communities of Interest

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Zarobi@aussie.zone 17 points 21 hours ago (4 children)

The original thought experiment was about Chinese, so it's more of a reference than deliberate racism. It's a famous philosophical debate about whether A.I. can be conscious, or if it just simulates understanding.

Imagine a native English speaker who knows no Chinese locked in a room full of boxes of Chinese symbols (a data base) together with a book of instructions for manipulating the symbols (the program). Imagine that people outside the room send in other Chinese symbols which, unknown to the person in the room, are questions in Chinese (the input). And imagine that by following the instructions in the program the man in the room is able to pass out Chinese symbols which are correct answers to the questions (the output). The program enables the person in the room to pass the Turing Test for understanding Chinese but he does not understand a word of Chinese.

Searle goes on to say, “The point of the argument is this: if the man in the room does not understand Chinese on the basis of implementing the appropriate program for understanding Chinese then neither does any other digital computer solely on that basis because no computer, qua computer, has anything the man does not have.”

Further reading

[–] 2ndDegreeOWO@lemmy.world 2 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

That's really a flawed analogy, though. In this analogy, the man isn't passing the Chinese Turing Test -- the program is passing the Turing Test. The man is just the hardware that the program is running on.

It's not a question of whether the man (the hardware) has any understanding. What you want to know is if the program has any understanding. Honestly, it seems like deliberately muddying the issue by proposing this hypothetical 'intelligent hardware' and using it to distract from the actual question about the software's intelligence.

If I'm running a supposedly 'intelligent' AI on my 3090, you can't refute that by pointing out that the 3090 is not intelligent on its own, without software.

[–] Zarobi@aussie.zone 2 points 14 hours ago

In this situation, neither the hardware (man) nor software (program / instructions) has any understanding. The man is blindly following instructions, while the program is simply… instructions. Searle was trying to highlight that neither understanding nor consciousness arises automatically just by having a fancy and convincing output generator.

Another nice, more recent quote:

I demonstrated years ago with the so-called Chinese Room Argument that the implementation of the computer program is not by itself sufficient for consciousness or intentionality. Computation is defined purely formally or syntactically, whereas minds have actual mental or semantic contents, and we cannot get from syntactical to the semantic just by having the syntactical operations and nothing else. To put this point slightly more technically, the notion “same implemented program” defines an equivalence class that is specified independently of any specific physical realization. But such a specification necessarily leaves out the biologically specific powers of the brain to cause cognitive processes. A system, me, for example, would not acquire an understanding of Chinese just by going through the steps of a computer program that simulated the behavior of a Chinese speaker.

It's not my analogy, I take no credit for it. If you follow the link to Stanford Philosophy, there's plenty of discourse; including pretty much every counterargument possible. It's an interesting read.

[–] SLVRDRGN@lemmy.world 3 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

Wow, thank you for this! Never knew about this one. Why the heck did anyone downvote your helpful comment?

[–] Zarobi@aussie.zone 2 points 20 hours ago

I remove my own upvote from my comments lol

[–] PetDinosaurs@lemmy.world -1 points 19 hours ago

That's not what Chinese whispers is, though.

It's what I grew up calling telephone.

Telephone is where you start with a short phrase and whisper it into the next person's ear. Then that continues for everyone, and what the last person says out loud has nothing to do with the original statement.

[–] SailorFuzz@lemmy.world -4 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (3 children)

Your defense is "thats just what they called it back then" as though were forced to keep calling it the same thing today. Pass, lazy justification for casual racism.

Like, shocker, people 40-50 years ago we pretty loose with racist caricatures...

[–] tutter@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

A mention of Chinese ethnicity or language is not racism you doofus.

As to your other mentioned example, 'sitting indian style' is racist because

A) indian as a reference to native americans is a racist term

B) it codes behaviour to ethnicity and thus serves as grounds for stereotypization

While referencing a Chinese room is not racism, as Chinese is a perfectly valid ethnicity, and they do have rooms in China. Additionally its a reference to a thought experiment, where the Chinese part refers to Chinese characters. Would 'the hanzi script mandarin room experiment' be more accurate? Not even necessarily, seems most people use hanzi writing interchangeable with the term 'Chinese characters'

In conclusion: Youre too stupid to understand the nuances of this and therefore probably shouldnt get into discussions of racism with other people.

[–] SailorFuzz@lemmy.world -1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Lotta words to say you just wanna be racist.

[–] tutter@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Really not beating the 'too stupid to comment on the issue' allegations with that comment sweaty

[–] SailorFuzz@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

Not really beating the casual racist with your flippant insults and uncivil responses.

[–] cannedtuna@lemmy.world 0 points 7 hours ago

Ok, so I can’t tell if you’re trolling or being intentionally dense for the sake of outrage.

Zarobi commented on why it’s called The Chinese Room Experiment, which is because they use Chinese characters as the basis of information passed between outside and inside.

Chinese is used as the basis of the thought experiment because it’s a notoriously difficult language to learn because there’s thousands of different characters and pronunciations. You can’t expect the occupant of the room, an English speaker, to be able to pick up on it. They could only select correct answers just by pure chance.

The experiment wouldn’t work with other languages that share a Latin or Germanic base as the occupant could, with some effort, puzzle out some of the words. For example:

In either case, I can’t really take you seriously when your profile picture is from that scene in Clerks 2

For those who haven’t seen Clerks 2

[–] tutter@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

Lol those things are obviously not the same. Being rude is also not racism honey 😂

[–] starik@lemmy.today 2 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

This reminds me of my ex’s mom describing someone as Mexican, then asking “Is that racist?” Well, now it is, Karen (her actual name).

Any mention of an ethnicity other than white isn’t racist. You’re racist for thinking it is.

[–] Zarobi@aussie.zone 4 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

It's not racist lol. In case you need a refresher on the definition of racism:

discrimination, prejudice, or violence against people because of their race

There's no prejudice or discrimination at all. It doesn't even have anything to do with the culture or language. It could really be any language that the person in the room doesn't understand, like Klingon, Latin, or whatever. Save your energy for actually racist phrases like "Chinesium" etc

[–] SailorFuzz@lemmy.world -4 points 20 hours ago

Okay buddy. Weird hill to die on.