13 ms·

The unrestricted Turing test has been around since the 1950s as a test that hasn't changed. No one is moving the goalposts, I think it's rather the opposite.

The unrestricted Turing test has been around since the 1950s as a test that hasn't changed. No one is moving the goalposts, I think it's rather the opposite. Every ten years computers learn a new trick or two and people rush to claim that this time, it's intelligent.

kevin_thibedeau 9y ago
The Turing test is all a smoke and mirrors game. Q&A interactions say nothing about underlying self-directed initiative. Acting intelligent doesn't make it so just as a thespian doesn't become a real Hamlet by playing the role.
- danieltillett 9y ago
  It does if the questions are very carefully considered. Designing good questions is not easy.
- hyperpallium 9y ago
  How do you know when you're talking to a real Hamlet? BTW I hadn't heard your Hamlet counter before, and I like it. A similar one might be: just because someone sold you the Brooklyn Bridge doesn't mean you own it. The flaw is there are other ways of checking those; for intelligence, there are none. Behaviour is it (at least, so far... still awaiting a non-behavioural definition of intelligence).
  - musage 9y ago
    Who you think I am is completely irrelevant to who I am, that is something established by me from the inside if you will. It's done before the question whether an observer exists even arises. So yes, you wouldn't know either way, but that still doesn't make them Hamlet if they're not.
- moxious 9y ago
  On the contrary it's a wonderful test because it establishes indistinguishability; namely if you pass it, the whole point is that a person can't tell the computer from the intelligent thing. Meaning that you can't really argue that the computer is different than the intelligent thing. Because how would you tell them apart? Besides, the original claim was that the goalposts are moving. And even if you hate the Turing test, it's clear that the goalposts are not moving.
  - manquer 9y ago
    It is a misguided and subjective test at best, most humans are not really qualified to tell the difference. It is possible that not in the far future some variant of ANN is successfully able to imitate human interactions. Chatbots do some already . Just like a well trained parrot imitating human speech can never ever truly develop understanding of a human language however many words it knows, this approach to intelligence may create systems which can perhaps fool us in conversation, but likely never have an original thought or can evolve on their own.
- fasquoika 9y ago
  >Acting intelligent doesn't make it so just as a thespian doesn't become a real Hamlet by playing the role. I think the idea is that a machine that can emulate a human is necessarily intelligent because it can emulate intelligence. It's supposed to be similar to the way that you can know that a machine is Turing-equivalent because it can emulate a machine which is Turing-equivalent
mdpopescu 9y ago
Eliza was beating that since it showed up. I've seen people talk to similar programs for hours.

kevin_thibedeau 9y ago

The Turing test is all a smoke and mirrors game. Q&A interactions say nothing about underlying self-directed initiative. Acting intelligent doesn't make it so just as a thespian doesn't become a real Hamlet by playing the role.

danieltillett 9y ago
It does if the questions are very carefully considered. Designing good questions is not easy.
hyperpallium 9y ago
How do you know when you're talking to a real Hamlet? BTW I hadn't heard your Hamlet counter before, and I like it. A similar one might be: just because someone sold you the Brooklyn Bridge doesn't mean you own it. The flaw is there are other ways of checking those; for intelligence, there are none. Behaviour is it (at least, so far... still awaiting a non-behavioural definition of intelligence).
- musage 9y ago
  Who you think I am is completely irrelevant to who I am, that is something established by me from the inside if you will. It's done before the question whether an observer exists even arises. So yes, you wouldn't know either way, but that still doesn't make them Hamlet if they're not.
moxious 9y ago
On the contrary it's a wonderful test because it establishes indistinguishability; namely if you pass it, the whole point is that a person can't tell the computer from the intelligent thing. Meaning that you can't really argue that the computer is different than the intelligent thing. Because how would you tell them apart? Besides, the original claim was that the goalposts are moving. And even if you hate the Turing test, it's clear that the goalposts are not moving.
- manquer 9y ago
  It is a misguided and subjective test at best, most humans are not really qualified to tell the difference. It is possible that not in the far future some variant of ANN is successfully able to imitate human interactions. Chatbots do some already . Just like a well trained parrot imitating human speech can never ever truly develop understanding of a human language however many words it knows, this approach to intelligence may create systems which can perhaps fool us in conversation, but likely never have an original thought or can evolve on their own.
fasquoika 9y ago
>Acting intelligent doesn't make it so just as a thespian doesn't become a real Hamlet by playing the role. I think the idea is that a machine that can emulate a human is necessarily intelligent because it can emulate intelligence. It's supposed to be similar to the way that you can know that a machine is Turing-equivalent because it can emulate a machine which is Turing-equivalent

mdpopescu 9y ago

Eliza was beating that since it showed up. I've seen people talk to similar programs for hours.