3 ms·
I assume your talking about the Chinese Room? (LINK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room) I actually agree, but
by unimpressive 15y ago
I assume your talking about the Chinese Room? (LINK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room)
I actually agree, but for different reasons. I don't think human judges (That is, NORMAL human judges, non-geeks.) are a good measure of an entities intelligence. I personally have managed to convince at least one person that I'm a machine.
Sufficiently good pattern matching to produce reasonable-enough sounding sentences would probably fool most casual observers. For me, the validity to a turing test relies heavily on how long and under how much pressure the A.I has to keep up it's illusion of humanity.
A more objective test of intelligence would be nice though.
- FollowSteph3 15y agoYes, I meant the Chinese Room. I couldn't remember the exact term. Thank you for that! One test I heard of that sounded pretty promising is the ability of the computer to discover new patterns in existing data. Not just pattern matching, because that's possible without intelligence, but to discover new patterns from the existing data and use those new patterns to correctly predict the future. Now that's incredibly hard to do!!
- codex 15y agoIsn't the Turing Test strictly more powerful than the test you describe, because it can be administered as part of a Turing Test? It seems like humans find new patterns all the time.