6 ms·

And how will we know that Watson actually feels fear, or will we just get someone else saying "Watson is a simulation, a clever puppet designed to mimic human b

And how will we know that Watson actually feels fear, or will we just get someone else saying "Watson is a simulation, a clever puppet designed to mimic human behavior" response? Anyway, the answer to this type of conundrum is simple and well-known: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test Of course it should be noted that we aren't there yet for Watson. Even in the restricted domain of a game show, when Watson fails, it does so with a different mode, compared to humans, so we can identify that it isn't actually a human.

mattmanser 16y ago
Personally I don't think the answer is the turing test, it is a limited test of intelligence. There's also no guarantee we wouldn't be able to brute force it in time, just as deep blue was mere brute forcing. Impressive technologically, disappointing intellectually. When I think of intelligence I think of intuition, creativity, flexibility and the ability to learn. The turing test is a simple test along a long path. I don't think the answer of your conundrum is simple and well known.
- demallien 16y ago
  You don't understand what the Turing Test is all about. It isn't testing intelligence, it is an attempt to answer the question "Can machines think?". It's all there in that Wikipedia link that I posted. Also, what makes you think that what goes on in your own brain isn't just another form of "brute-forcing"? What makes one implementation of thinking "thinking" and another form just "brute-force"? And then, brute-forcing is the technique of trying every possible solution - a Turing Machine must be able to move in a near infinite solution space, so brute-forcing is not actually possible.
  - Qz 16y ago
    It's really more like "Can we fool ourselves into believing that machines think?" which isn't actually any different from the question "Can we fool ourselves into believing other people think?"
  - blauwbilgorgel 16y ago
    He does understand. The Turing test is to answer if machines can feign human intelligence. To pass a Turing test, feigning (not necessarily possessing) intelligence is enough. The answer to insight into a system's qualia is not a Turing test: Watson, tell us, do you feel fear? Crunching through some look-up tables Yes! What did that prove about Watson feeling fear or not? We could have Alice talking with Watson for hours on end about fear and daddy issues, without them even knowing the taste of fruit. That is why the Turing test is an incomplete test for human-like machine intelligence. You seem to equate feigning intelligence, with possessing intelligence. Feigning fear with possessing fear.
    - demallien 16y ago
      Ugh. No, I repeat, the Turing Test is not about intelligence - it's about whether or not the entity in question can think. Please, read the link I posted, it's all in there. Also, where on Earth do I equate feigning intelligence with possessing intelligence. You're just making that up.
      - blauwbilgorgel 16y ago
        I had to read the original paper in the first week of college, so my knowledge may be a little rusty, but wasn't the paper titled: Computing Machinery and Intelligence? I'm sure the question was asked: Can machines think? But passing the Turing Test doesn't answer this question. It answers a different question: What will happen when a machine takes the part of A in this game? Will the interrogator decide wrongly as often when the game is played like this as he does when the game is played between a man and a woman? Its up to you if you take an affirmative answer to those questions to also answer the question it replaces: "Can machines think?" The imitation game does not aim to proof anything to this point. It aims to support its replacement questions, which we have to take at face value: that imitation is just as good (for all sense and purposes) as the real thing. Also, you write: >And how will we know that Watson actually feels fear? The answer to this type of conundrum is simple and well-known: a Turing test. If I make a chatscript that tricks you into thinking it was a person feeling fear, by your own logic, you would deem that chatscript to be thinking and actually capable of intelligent conversation, even if you were told afterward it was just some lines of code, feigning you with a (if input, output: yes), it still passed the test, so your answer is: those binary bits must feel fear (or you agree that you apply the Turing Test where it makes no sense). What entities are really feeling and how to communicate this, has no simple known answer. There have been century-old debates about Qualia. The answer certainly isn't an imitation game, if you insist it is, you are equating feigning with truly possessing. (Or you are suggesting I am a P-zombie and I take offense to that!)
- blinks 16y ago
  What is intuition? What is flexibility? How do you test these things in a lab? Turing's test is based on the most straightforward way of measuring intelligence (loaded word, but common; here I'm specifically talking about "intuition, creativity, flexibility and the ability to learn"). If you can have an interview with a computer, and an interview with a human, and be unable to determine which is which (accurately, over several trials), how can you argue that the computer isn't human-like? Most versions of the test have ways of eliminating everything but the straight communication of information (because whether you can build a convincing robot or amazing TTS software is a different problem). How do you know that I'm not a computer?
defen 16y ago
> Anyway, the answer to this type of conundrum is simple and well-known: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test I prefer the Voight-Kampff test: 1. It’s your birthday. Someone gives you a calfskin wallet. How do you react? 2. You’ve got a little boy. He shows you his butterfly collection plus the killing jar. What do you do? 3. You’re watching television. Suddenly you realize there’s a wasp crawling on your arm. etc.
- mkramlich 16y ago
  "Decker, will I die?"
nl 16y ago
The biggest problem I have with the Turing test is that many humans can fail it. The best bots can already carry on conversations better than a low-intelligence human who isn't concentrating on the task. It's generally possible to distinguish bots by asking more probing questions. The problem with that is as the Watson project shows it is quite possible to build a computer system that can do well on hard questions too. That leaves emotional-response type questions, but many of those a culturally specific, and so can really only identify something as being either a bot OR a person from a different culture. My view is that the Turing test is much closer to being passed than people think, if you specify a Turing test that all humans can pass.
- mkramlich 16y ago
  > The biggest problem I have with the Turing test is that many humans can fail it. This is precisely the reason why I think AI has so much potential. It doesn't have to be smarter than the smartest human to be of any use. If it's at least as smart and knowledgeable as a fairly dumb or ignorant person, then it could be incredibly useful. What's the use of building a fleet of robot servants if we can't load them with an AI which is at least smart enough to carry out chores, follow orders and communicate about everyday objects. We don't have to load them each with Einstein AI, just Bubba AI would be a big win.
  - nl 16y ago
    Yes, I agree. Too often researchers think that AI must be perfect under all conditions. The truth is that we adapt our usage of tools to their limitations all the time, which makes me think that AI-powered vision systems that work well in some limited circumstances would still be very useful.

mattmanser 16y ago

Personally I don't think the answer is the turing test, it is a limited test of intelligence. There's also no guarantee we wouldn't be able to brute force it in time, just as deep blue was mere brute forcing. Impressive technologically, disappointing intellectually. When I think of intelligence I think of intuition, creativity, flexibility and the ability to learn. The turing test is a simple test along a long path. I don't think the answer of your conundrum is simple and well known.

demallien 16y ago
You don't understand what the Turing Test is all about. It isn't testing intelligence, it is an attempt to answer the question "Can machines think?". It's all there in that Wikipedia link that I posted. Also, what makes you think that what goes on in your own brain isn't just another form of "brute-forcing"? What makes one implementation of thinking "thinking" and another form just "brute-force"? And then, brute-forcing is the technique of trying every possible solution - a Turing Machine must be able to move in a near infinite solution space, so brute-forcing is not actually possible.
- Qz 16y ago
  It's really more like "Can we fool ourselves into believing that machines think?" which isn't actually any different from the question "Can we fool ourselves into believing other people think?"
- blauwbilgorgel 16y ago
  He does understand. The Turing test is to answer if machines can feign human intelligence. To pass a Turing test, feigning (not necessarily possessing) intelligence is enough. The answer to insight into a system's qualia is not a Turing test: Watson, tell us, do you feel fear? Crunching through some look-up tables Yes! What did that prove about Watson feeling fear or not? We could have Alice talking with Watson for hours on end about fear and daddy issues, without them even knowing the taste of fruit. That is why the Turing test is an incomplete test for human-like machine intelligence. You seem to equate feigning intelligence, with possessing intelligence. Feigning fear with possessing fear.
  - demallien 16y ago
    Ugh. No, I repeat, the Turing Test is not about intelligence - it's about whether or not the entity in question can think. Please, read the link I posted, it's all in there. Also, where on Earth do I equate feigning intelligence with possessing intelligence. You're just making that up.
    - blauwbilgorgel 16y ago
      I had to read the original paper in the first week of college, so my knowledge may be a little rusty, but wasn't the paper titled: Computing Machinery and Intelligence? I'm sure the question was asked: Can machines think? But passing the Turing Test doesn't answer this question. It answers a different question: What will happen when a machine takes the part of A in this game? Will the interrogator decide wrongly as often when the game is played like this as he does when the game is played between a man and a woman? Its up to you if you take an affirmative answer to those questions to also answer the question it replaces: "Can machines think?" The imitation game does not aim to proof anything to this point. It aims to support its replacement questions, which we have to take at face value: that imitation is just as good (for all sense and purposes) as the real thing. Also, you write: >And how will we know that Watson actually feels fear? The answer to this type of conundrum is simple and well-known: a Turing test. If I make a chatscript that tricks you into thinking it was a person feeling fear, by your own logic, you would deem that chatscript to be thinking and actually capable of intelligent conversation, even if you were told afterward it was just some lines of code, feigning you with a (if input, output: yes), it still passed the test, so your answer is: those binary bits must feel fear (or you agree that you apply the Turing Test where it makes no sense). What entities are really feeling and how to communicate this, has no simple known answer. There have been century-old debates about Qualia. The answer certainly isn't an imitation game, if you insist it is, you are equating feigning with truly possessing. (Or you are suggesting I am a P-zombie and I take offense to that!)
blinks 16y ago
What is intuition? What is flexibility? How do you test these things in a lab? Turing's test is based on the most straightforward way of measuring intelligence (loaded word, but common; here I'm specifically talking about "intuition, creativity, flexibility and the ability to learn"). If you can have an interview with a computer, and an interview with a human, and be unable to determine which is which (accurately, over several trials), how can you argue that the computer isn't human-like? Most versions of the test have ways of eliminating everything but the straight communication of information (because whether you can build a convincing robot or amazing TTS software is a different problem). How do you know that I'm not a computer?

defen 16y ago

> Anyway, the answer to this type of conundrum is simple and well-known: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test I prefer the Voight-Kampff test: 1. It’s your birthday. Someone gives you a calfskin wallet. How do you react? 2. You’ve got a little boy. He shows you his butterfly collection plus the killing jar. What do you do? 3. You’re watching television. Suddenly you realize there’s a wasp crawling on your arm. etc.

mkramlich 16y ago
"Decker, will I die?"

nl 16y ago

The biggest problem I have with the Turing test is that many humans can fail it. The best bots can already carry on conversations better than a low-intelligence human who isn't concentrating on the task. It's generally possible to distinguish bots by asking more probing questions. The problem with that is as the Watson project shows it is quite possible to build a computer system that can do well on hard questions too. That leaves emotional-response type questions, but many of those a culturally specific, and so can really only identify something as being either a bot OR a person from a different culture. My view is that the Turing test is much closer to being passed than people think, if you specify a Turing test that all humans can pass.

mkramlich 16y ago
> The biggest problem I have with the Turing test is that many humans can fail it. This is precisely the reason why I think AI has so much potential. It doesn't have to be smarter than the smartest human to be of any use. If it's at least as smart and knowledgeable as a fairly dumb or ignorant person, then it could be incredibly useful. What's the use of building a fleet of robot servants if we can't load them with an AI which is at least smart enough to carry out chores, follow orders and communicate about everyday objects. We don't have to load them each with Einstein AI, just Bubba AI would be a big win.
- nl 16y ago
  Yes, I agree. Too often researchers think that AI must be perfect under all conditions. The truth is that we adapt our usage of tools to their limitations all the time, which makes me think that AI-powered vision systems that work well in some limited circumstances would still be very useful.