3 ms·
I have acquaintances that that couldn't pass this based on their common texting skills. There's probably no point to argue about what the Turing test "is", but
by RogerL 4y ago
I have acquaintances that that couldn't pass this based on their common texting skills. There's probably no point to argue about what the Turing test "is", but the definition in this comment chain is pretty uncompromising - I can't imagine fooling any (meaning all, I assume) humans; there is too much ambiguity in the signal.
"Are you going to be at the blah blah because I need blah". response: "I really wqnt it". Nonresponsive, typos, what does 'want' refer to? Who knows. Is this a bad bot, someone spun out on meth, someone with cognitive processing issues, a busy mom texting while distracted, or ?
- karpierz 4y ago> I can't imagine fooling any (meaning all, I assume) humans; there is too much ambiguity in the signal. I think you've inverted the expectation here. What I was saying is a machine passes if you can't find anyone in the world who can distinguish between it and an actual human. Meaning that if the "world's smartest person" can distinguish between it and an actual human, it fails, even if it can fool everyone else. A machine can pass the test by deliberately feigning to be a human with limited communication capabilities (ex: I think we can simulate 2 month old baby talking via text). But then all you've shown is that your machine is as capable of thought as a 2 month old baby, which probably isn't the bar that you're trying to reach.
- sdenton4 4y agoIt's a good thing we don't subject human intelligence to such tests...
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]