3 ms·
> Following Alan Turing’s 1950 paper, anything less than 70 percent accuracy by the judges would constitute the machines “passing,” so LaMDA would need to fool
by jart 4y ago
> Following Alan Turing’s 1950 paper, anything less than 70 percent accuracy by the judges would constitute the machines “passing,” so LaMDA would need to fool just nine of the 30 judges to pass the Turing test. If I had to, I’d bet (though not a lot) that LaMDA would, indeed, fool nine or more of the judges.
One thing I didn't know reading Turing's original paper is he predicted how big he thought a computer would have to be to pass his test.
> I believe that in about fifty years’ time it will be possible to programme computers, with a storage capacity of about 10^9, to make them play the imitation game so well that an average interrogator will not have more than 70 per cent, chance of making the right identification after five minutes of questioning. https://academic.oup.com/mind/article/LIX/236/433/986238 https://academic.oup.com/mind/article/LIX/236/433/986238
Turing said it'd take 10^9 bytes (words?). Google has a storage system called Colossus that has 10^18 bytes, so clearly they must be slacking off if they needed that much room to finally pass Turing's test.
- freedomben 4y agoThose early pioneers of computing were able to do so much with so little, that I think they couldn't possibly imagine how bloated things would get. I think they were assuming that developers would only get more efficient, rather than much much less. Certainly naive, but in my opinion understandable.
- jart 4y agoBloat keeps the infinitely replicable labor economy afloat.
- LiquidSky 4y ago>I predict that within 10 years, computers will be twice as powerful, ten thousand times larger, and so expensive that only the 5 richest kings of Europe will own them. Professor Jonathan Frink, 1960s