3 ms·
That's exactly why I said "it seems very dependent on the skill and intelligence of the human tester." A test "pass" or "fail" could potentially be the fault o
by andybak 6y ago
That's exactly why I said "it seems very dependent on the skill and intelligence of the human tester."
A test "pass" or "fail" could potentially be the fault of the tester as much as it is a sign of intelligence in the AI. How do you evaluate how capable someone is of administering a worthwhile Turing Test?
Maybe they should be tested beforehand. I propose a system involving a remote teletype machine and human tester...
- qayxc 6y agoThe test itself doesn't rely on one person, though. It's a statistical measure, so for each "game" you have a number of interviewers/judges who test the system. If the system has any of them fooled, the test can be considered "passed". AFAIK there's no precise number attached to this, so it's not like ">x% people fooled => pass". So in essence it's not "the human tester" but "the average human tester" for some arbitrary definition of "average". It's a really interesting dilemma if you think about it: is a forger good if they're able to fool everyone but experts? Does an AI pass the Turing test if it fools the general public, but every AI expert who knows the system would be able to tell after just a few sentences?