4 ms·

Such a specialized AI would probably be more useful in practice, but that is not really what the Turing test is concerned with. The Turing test is a behaviorist

by olavk 9y ago

Such a specialized AI would probably be more useful in practice, but that is not really what the Turing test is concerned with. The Turing test is a behaviorist approach to deciding the question if a computer "can think". In any case, it think it is much easier to create an AI specialized in a particular domain rather than a general "human-like" AI.

JoeAltmaier 9y ago
There's a big dose of ethnocentrism (species-centrism?) in that. Why do we even want an AI that has human foibles, to the point its apparently as fallible as a human? Why is that part of the definition of 'thinking'?
- olavk 9y ago
  Whether we want a computer which can think like a human is a separate question. The Turing tests is only concerned about whether we have such a computer. Of course you can redefine the word "thinking" however you want, and state that a GameBoy can think according to your definition. That does not really teach us anything though. The point of the Turing test is we have no objective definition or measure of whether some entity "can think like a human" or not, so the best we can do is to test if it appears to think like humans. That is not saying anything about whether is is "good" or "bad" to think like a human. I am certainly happy that computers and machines in general does not think like humans!
- feral 9y ago
  You, and ideally everyone else commenting on this stuff on HN, should just have a very quick read of Turing's original paper before criticizing. It is very well thought-out: Alan Turing, 1950: "The game may perhaps be criticised on the ground that the odds are weighted too heavily against the machine. If the man were to try and pretend to be the machine he would clearly make a very poor showing. He would be given away at once by slowness and inaccuracy in arithmetic. May not machines carry out something which ought to be described as thinking but which is very different from what a man does? This objection is a very strong one, but at least we can say that if, nevertheless, a machine can be constructed to play the imitation game satisfactorily, we need not be troubled by this objection." The Turing test is a proposed test of sufficiency for thinking; not a test of necessity; its really framed pretty well in his original paper.
  - JoeAltmaier 9y ago
    I get it; the test is sufficient. But I remain troubled, as I'm not sure I even want an AI that thinks in that way (the same as a human). I make no more claim than that; the Turing test is a little interesting and quaint; but surely much better tests could be conceived of.

by olavk 9y ago

JoeAltmaier 9y ago

There's a big dose of ethnocentrism (species-centrism?) in that. Why do we even want an AI that has human foibles, to the point its apparently as fallible as a human? Why is that part of the definition of 'thinking'?

olavk 9y ago
Whether we want a computer which can think like a human is a separate question. The Turing tests is only concerned about whether we have such a computer. Of course you can redefine the word "thinking" however you want, and state that a GameBoy can think according to your definition. That does not really teach us anything though. The point of the Turing test is we have no objective definition or measure of whether some entity "can think like a human" or not, so the best we can do is to test if it appears to think like humans. That is not saying anything about whether is is "good" or "bad" to think like a human. I am certainly happy that computers and machines in general does not think like humans!
feral 9y ago
You, and ideally everyone else commenting on this stuff on HN, should just have a very quick read of Turing's original paper before criticizing. It is very well thought-out: Alan Turing, 1950: "The game may perhaps be criticised on the ground that the odds are weighted too heavily against the machine. If the man were to try and pretend to be the machine he would clearly make a very poor showing. He would be given away at once by slowness and inaccuracy in arithmetic. May not machines carry out something which ought to be described as thinking but which is very different from what a man does? This objection is a very strong one, but at least we can say that if, nevertheless, a machine can be constructed to play the imitation game satisfactorily, we need not be troubled by this objection." The Turing test is a proposed test of sufficiency for thinking; not a test of necessity; its really framed pretty well in his original paper.
- JoeAltmaier 9y ago
  I get it; the test is sufficient. But I remain troubled, as I'm not sure I even want an AI that thinks in that way (the same as a human). I make no more claim than that; the Turing test is a little interesting and quaint; but surely much better tests could be conceived of.