5 ms·

We agreed on a definition of artificial intelligence--the Turing test--for 50 years. The goalpost was clearly established, widely agreed upon, and promptly aban

We agreed on a definition of artificial intelligence--the Turing test--for 50 years. The goalpost was clearly established, widely agreed upon, and promptly abandoned when chatbots blew past it. I'm convinced that when the dust has settled and historians look back to decide on THE point in time at which we achieved AI or even AGI, that time will not be in the future, but in the past.

scott_w 3y ago
The fact it was defined a long time ago isn’t good enough. If, upon passing the test, you realise the test was insufficient, you change the test. You don’t shrug your shoulders and go “well it must be right because a guy said so 50 years ago!”
dragonwriter 3y ago
> We agreed on a definition of artificial intelligence–the Turing test–for 50 years. No, we didn’t. There was plenty of disagreement over it. Heck, the Chinese Room is very popular rejection fundamentally of the premise of it. That aside, even if in a blind scenario (where the builders didn’t know the criteria used to test) being able to fool humans in linguistic interaction would be reasonably likely to be a good test of general intelligence, LLM’s are about as an obvious of a direct and deliberate attempt to Goodhart’s Law the Turing Test as one could imagine. Using a particular capacity to test a more general capacity is obviously vulnerable to systems built to specialize in the tested capacity, as opposed to those that have it as a consequence of general ability.
JimtheCoder 3y ago
"I'm convinced that when the dust has settled and historians look back to decide on THE point in time at which we achieved AI or even AGI, that time will not be in the future, but in the past." If historians are looking back to decide the point, by definition doesn't it have to be in the past? Historians looking back to the future doesn't make sense...
- epylar 3y ago
  Historians in 2050 could look back at 2040, which would be their past but our future.

scott_w 3y ago

The fact it was defined a long time ago isn’t good enough. If, upon passing the test, you realise the test was insufficient, you change the test. You don’t shrug your shoulders and go “well it must be right because a guy said so 50 years ago!”

dragonwriter 3y ago

> We agreed on a definition of artificial intelligence–the Turing test–for 50 years. No, we didn’t. There was plenty of disagreement over it. Heck, the Chinese Room is very popular rejection fundamentally of the premise of it. That aside, even if in a blind scenario (where the builders didn’t know the criteria used to test) being able to fool humans in linguistic interaction would be reasonably likely to be a good test of general intelligence, LLM’s are about as an obvious of a direct and deliberate attempt to Goodhart’s Law the Turing Test as one could imagine. Using a particular capacity to test a more general capacity is obviously vulnerable to systems built to specialize in the tested capacity, as opposed to those that have it as a consequence of general ability.

JimtheCoder 3y ago

"I'm convinced that when the dust has settled and historians look back to decide on THE point in time at which we achieved AI or even AGI, that time will not be in the future, but in the past." If historians are looking back to decide the point, by definition doesn't it have to be in the past? Historians looking back to the future doesn't make sense...

epylar 3y ago
Historians in 2050 could look back at 2040, which would be their past but our future.