4 ms·
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
by 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 agoNo, 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 agoI 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 agoVery cool! :) I once made a chatbot that screams. http://gunshowcomic.com/513 http://gunshowcomic.com/513
- dekhn 6y agoI 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.