4 ms·
There is no general AI: Why Turing machines cannot pass the Turing test
- theamk 7y agoThat may be more convincing if there were not a winner in Loebner Test every year [0] I am not saying that the paper is 100% wrong, and GA is possible, just pointing thar the core premise is flawed. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loebner_Prize https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loebner_Prize
- gus_massa 7y ago> But what ‘sufficiently large’ and ‘sufficiently similar’ mean, here, are questions of mathematics. We shall see that when these questions are raised in relation to those sorts of stochastic temporal processes which are human dialogues it becomes immediately clear that there are two insurmountable hurdles to realizing the scenario in which a machine would pass the Turing test, namely > 1. that we could never have sufficiently large amounts of data to train it because the variance in dialogue situations is as huge as the variance in human culture and behaviour, and > 2. that the processes in question do not meet the conditions needed for the application of any known type of mathematical model. The points 1 and 2 can be applied to chess, go, and StarCraft II. There is no big enough set of all the variants of play and there is definitively no good mathematical model. Anyway in these games one computer can play better than humans. Language has a bigger and more difficult space to model, but if the claim is that these are the "mathematical reasons" to prove that machines can't pass the Turing test, then the same "mathematical reasons" can be applied to similar problems.