3 ms·

Your argument is based on the proposition that a dog machine able to fool him can be built. There is no proof for that yet, and having it for an axiom is quite

Your argument is based on the proposition that a dog machine able to fool him can be built. There is no proof for that yet, and having it for an axiom is quite far fetched.

sjy 6y ago
Isn’t Searle’s argument based on the equally far-fetched axiom that a program could be written which (a) passes the Turing test, and (b) could be executed by a human using pencil and paper, with sufficient speed to not fail the Turing test?
- ifdefdebug 6y ago
  No, obviously not because that's just absurd. But one could ask if the fact of a human with pencil and paper being dead slow computing the output is enough to invalidate the whole argument. But anyway, I am not trying to defend Searle’s argument. I was just pointing out something what seemed to me like a flaw in that particular refutation.
- 6510 6y ago
  I started writing and didn't finish a chat bot one time that meats the criteria. (Actually 2 chat bots) The formula is this: 1) The 2 bots have a scripted conversation. 2) When a human tries to participate (read: interrupts) they have a conversation like "Bot1: who is this guy? Do you know him? Bot2: NO". Then they happily continue their chat completely ignoring the human unless he types their username. Then it goes "What do you want?" and "Could you please stop highlighting me" etc
  - tripzilch 6y ago
    Very cool! :) I once made a chatbot that screams. http://gunshowcomic.com/513 http://gunshowcomic.com/513
- dekhn 6y ago
  I read Searle's argument as boiling down to: you cannot tell the difference between a "truly conscious" (in terms of experiencing the subjective experience of consciousness), and a machine that emulates behavior well enough to fool people into believing that it is conscious. Many people (like me) believe that in the process of making such a fake, it's entirely possible (and even likely) that a mind would emerge as a spontaneous outcome.
dekhn 6y ago
I agree there is no existential proof for dog machines that can fool humans yet. But it seems entirely within reason that within the next 50 years, both mechanical robots and their intelligences will improve to the point where they pass every visible test. Certainly chatbots and deepfakes are reaching a point where it's hard for non-experts to tell.

Your argument is based on the proposition that a dog machine able to fool him can be built. There is no proof for that yet, and having it for an axiom is quite far fetched.

sjy 6y ago

Isn’t Searle’s argument based on the equally far-fetched axiom that a program could be written which (a) passes the Turing test, and (b) could be executed by a human using pencil and paper, with sufficient speed to not fail the Turing test?

ifdefdebug 6y ago
No, obviously not because that's just absurd. But one could ask if the fact of a human with pencil and paper being dead slow computing the output is enough to invalidate the whole argument. But anyway, I am not trying to defend Searle’s argument. I was just pointing out something what seemed to me like a flaw in that particular refutation.
6510 6y ago
I started writing and didn't finish a chat bot one time that meats the criteria. (Actually 2 chat bots) The formula is this: 1) The 2 bots have a scripted conversation. 2) When a human tries to participate (read: interrupts) they have a conversation like "Bot1: who is this guy? Do you know him? Bot2: NO". Then they happily continue their chat completely ignoring the human unless he types their username. Then it goes "What do you want?" and "Could you please stop highlighting me" etc
- tripzilch 6y ago
  Very cool! :) I once made a chatbot that screams. http://gunshowcomic.com/513 http://gunshowcomic.com/513
dekhn 6y ago
I read Searle's argument as boiling down to: you cannot tell the difference between a "truly conscious" (in terms of experiencing the subjective experience of consciousness), and a machine that emulates behavior well enough to fool people into believing that it is conscious. Many people (like me) believe that in the process of making such a fake, it's entirely possible (and even likely) that a mind would emerge as a spontaneous outcome.

dekhn 6y ago

I agree there is no existential proof for dog machines that can fool humans yet. But it seems entirely within reason that within the next 50 years, both mechanical robots and their intelligences will improve to the point where they pass every visible test. Certainly chatbots and deepfakes are reaching a point where it's hard for non-experts to tell.