4 ms·
> And now here we are: it seems we tech people are every bit as susceptible to this kind of thinking as the average joes we looked down on. More. We’re more su
by avgcorrection 4y ago
> And now here we are: it seems we tech people are every bit as susceptible to this kind of thinking as the average joes we looked down on.
More. We’re more suspectible.
We are the people who take the Turing Test as an objective test of GAI, after all, even though it only tests how we percieve supposed intelligence.
- zuminator 4y agoThe Turing Test isn't meant to be an objective test of GAI. It's meant to replace a question that might be too vague or philosophically contentious to be answerable, "Can machines think?" with an answerable one, "Can a machine successfully fool a person into thinking it's a person?" So a robot bird that fools real birds arguably has passed the Avian Turing Test. (Also, arguably the Turing Test is by definition subjective.)
- avgcorrection 4y ago> The Turing Test isn't meant to be an objective test of GAI. It's meant to replace a question that might be too vague or philosophically contentious [snip] Correct in that that was what Turing intended. But the vulgar interpretation of it makes it out to be more than it really is. For Pete’s sake: two years ago I even saw a psychologist who suggested that psychologists should take notes from how computer science ostensibly measures “intelligence” by the Turing Test, because it’s so “objective”. That was sad.