4 ms·

The author claims we do "keep shifting the bar", but that simply isn't true. The same criteria for A(G)I still applies for 70 years now. The Turing Test has not

The author claims we do "keep shifting the bar", but that simply isn't true. The same criteria for A(G)I still applies for 70 years now. The Turing Test has not been passed by GPT-3 or any other system yet.

kelseyfrog 4y ago
I don't know about you, but recently when I bring up the idea of Turning testing AI, I get push back along the lines of, "Turning tests can be gamed." People instead suggest that Winnograd schema are better because they incorporate generalized knowledge. Now that we're getting human level Winnograd scores, we're getting suggestions that images, audio, and video are requirements. If this doesn't look like moving the goalposts, I don't know what is.
- drowsspa 4y ago
  I think it's a case of "we'll know it when we see it". I agree it looks like moving the goalposts, but I think most people would agree that current LMs just don't feel like AGIs.
  - wizeman 4y ago
    > I think it's a case of "we'll know it when we see it". I agree it looks like moving the goalposts, but I think most people would agree that current LMs just don't feel like AGIs. Heh, that sounds like a dangerous slippery slope. One day we're going to have real, "conscious" (whatever that means) AGI robots walking around us and people are still going to say "they don't feel like AGIs" (which is going to be used as a justification for cruelty, slavery, etc). Perhaps because they wouldn't behave exactly like us (or even if they would!).
    - kelseyfrog 4y ago
      There's the anchored functionalists, the evasive functionalists, and the metaphysical impossiblists. The anchored functionalists, have a threshold at which they will accept AGI and stick to it. The evasive functionalists will move their functional threshold because they feel uneasy about accepting an existence of AGI and the metaphysical impossibilists will never accept AGI on metaphysical grounds ie: it's incompatible with the way the universe is constructed/reality. I agree, there's going to be a point where AGI ends up existing, modifying social relations, and reshaping society and we're still going to be having this conversation. It feels as beyond the pale as someone who would today who would believe in a flat earth, epicycles upon epicycles in order to support non-existence.
- Buttons840 4y ago
  > I don't know about you, but recently when I bring up the idea of Turning testing AI, I get push back along the lines of, "Turning tests can be gamed." So you suggest doing a Turing test and the response is that Turing tests are too easy? Is that what they mean by "gamed"? The Turing test can be "gamed" by the AI making it too easy? Sounds like a lot of twisted logic from people who just don't want to face a Turing test.

kelseyfrog 4y ago

I don't know about you, but recently when I bring up the idea of Turning testing AI, I get push back along the lines of, "Turning tests can be gamed." People instead suggest that Winnograd schema are better because they incorporate generalized knowledge. Now that we're getting human level Winnograd scores, we're getting suggestions that images, audio, and video are requirements. If this doesn't look like moving the goalposts, I don't know what is.

drowsspa 4y ago
I think it's a case of "we'll know it when we see it". I agree it looks like moving the goalposts, but I think most people would agree that current LMs just don't feel like AGIs.
- wizeman 4y ago
  > I think it's a case of "we'll know it when we see it". I agree it looks like moving the goalposts, but I think most people would agree that current LMs just don't feel like AGIs. Heh, that sounds like a dangerous slippery slope. One day we're going to have real, "conscious" (whatever that means) AGI robots walking around us and people are still going to say "they don't feel like AGIs" (which is going to be used as a justification for cruelty, slavery, etc). Perhaps because they wouldn't behave exactly like us (or even if they would!).
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    There's the anchored functionalists, the evasive functionalists, and the metaphysical impossiblists. The anchored functionalists, have a threshold at which they will accept AGI and stick to it. The evasive functionalists will move their functional threshold because they feel uneasy about accepting an existence of AGI and the metaphysical impossibilists will never accept AGI on metaphysical grounds ie: it's incompatible with the way the universe is constructed/reality. I agree, there's going to be a point where AGI ends up existing, modifying social relations, and reshaping society and we're still going to be having this conversation. It feels as beyond the pale as someone who would today who would believe in a flat earth, epicycles upon epicycles in order to support non-existence.
Buttons840 4y ago
> I don't know about you, but recently when I bring up the idea of Turning testing AI, I get push back along the lines of, "Turning tests can be gamed." So you suggest doing a Turing test and the response is that Turing tests are too easy? Is that what they mean by "gamed"? The Turing test can be "gamed" by the AI making it too easy? Sounds like a lot of twisted logic from people who just don't want to face a Turing test.