3 ms·

> For most practical (commercial?) purposes, "can a human be tricked" is a much more important property than "can it think". I disagree. In my experience huma

> For most practical (commercial?) purposes, "can a human be tricked" is a much more important property than "can it think". I disagree. In my experience human customers don't care much about whether its obvious when they are communicating with a robot. In fact, in several use cases it's considered good practice, and may even be legally required, to tell them when they are. What they DO care about, is whether their requests, inquiries, complaints, etc. are handled quickly and efficiently. We don't create value for our customers by giving them good chatterbots. We create value by giving them highly functional automated systems.

n2d4 3y ago
I mean, if it can't handle requests like that, then it'll also not pass the Turing test (since asking the AI to do help with simple support request would get it to fail). I doubt that "thinking" systems are the only ones that can handle a support ticket (GPT-4 does quite alright on a lot of them already), at least if you require consciousness as a requirement for "thinking". Maybe we just disagree on what we mean when we say "think"?
- usrbinbash 3y ago
  > then it'll also not pass the Turing test Chatterbots, including the 60s-era ELIZA, which are mostly useless for this kind of task, have repeatedly been shown to be able to trick people into chosing the machine during the Turing "Test", so I'm not sure how you come by that conclusion. > at least if you require consciousness as a requirement for "thinking". I don't require consciousness, or an abstract and not-even-clearly-defined "thinking" capability from an advanced ML model. I require fitness for purpose, whatever that purpose is, and in most use cases I ever encountered, "trick the humen into believing I'm a human" isn't one of them. > Maybe we just disagree on what we mean when we say "think"? I don't think we really disagree, I think the problem is that "thinking", "consciousness", "intelligence" and a lot of other terms that often get thrown around when talking about AI, are really not well defined in technical terms.

n2d4 3y ago

I mean, if it can't handle requests like that, then it'll also not pass the Turing test (since asking the AI to do help with simple support request would get it to fail). I doubt that "thinking" systems are the only ones that can handle a support ticket (GPT-4 does quite alright on a lot of them already), at least if you require consciousness as a requirement for "thinking". Maybe we just disagree on what we mean when we say "think"?

usrbinbash 3y ago
> then it'll also not pass the Turing test Chatterbots, including the 60s-era ELIZA, which are mostly useless for this kind of task, have repeatedly been shown to be able to trick people into chosing the machine during the Turing "Test", so I'm not sure how you come by that conclusion. > at least if you require consciousness as a requirement for "thinking". I don't require consciousness, or an abstract and not-even-clearly-defined "thinking" capability from an advanced ML model. I require fitness for purpose, whatever that purpose is, and in most use cases I ever encountered, "trick the humen into believing I'm a human" isn't one of them. > Maybe we just disagree on what we mean when we say "think"? I don't think we really disagree, I think the problem is that "thinking", "consciousness", "intelligence" and a lot of other terms that often get thrown around when talking about AI, are really not well defined in technical terms.