3 ms·

The Turing test hasn't been relevant in years. And what's a "True AI" if you're also implying that it's not able to self-improve? Not sure about this comment,

• bryan0 5y ago
  Why is it no longer relevant? Seems like it would be the first good indicator if something can pass it.
  • Jensson 5y ago
    People made simple if/else statement programs that passed the turing test like a decade ago. The realization was that you didn't need to make a smart agent to solve it, you just needed to make it assertive and make a conversation that is easy to predict.
    • bryan0 5y ago
      Maybe you’re talking about a different variation of the Turing test than I am. I think any reasonable test is nowhere close to being solved. The key part is that both the human and the AI are both trying to convince a properly trained judge they are human in a general open-ended conversation. I know some variations have humans pretending they are computers or something which is completely backwards for a Turing Test.
• hutzlibu 5y ago
  "And what's a "True AI" if you're also implying that it's not able to self-improve?" Where did I imply such? We do not really understand "intelligence" yet. So the step of assuming if a digital intelligence comes into being also automatically means, it is able to recoursivly improve itself to godlike capabilities is just a vague hypothesis, not a fact. It might as well be the intelligence of a autistic crow. Also sure, many humans fail the turing test, too. It is still a very strong indicator, of whether something is really intelligent, or just trying to fake intelligence by diversion tactics, like the chatbots do that try the turing test.