4 ms·
> I expect that anybody you asked 10 years ago who was at least decently knowledgeable about tech and AI would have agreed that the Turing Test is a pretty dece
by the_af 1y ago
> I expect that anybody you asked 10 years ago who was at least decently knowledgeable about tech and AI would have agreed that the Turing Test is a pretty decent way to determine if we have a "real" AI
The "pop culture" interpretation of Turing Test, at least, seems very insufficient to me. It relies on human perception rather than on any algorithmic or AI-like achievement. Humans are very adept at convincing themselves non-sentient things are sentient. The most crude of stochastic parrots can fool many humans, your "average human".
If I remember correctly, ELIZA -- which is very crude by today's standards -- could fool some humans.
I don't think this weak interpretation of the Turing Test (which I know is not exactly what Alan Turing proposed) is at all sufficient.
- jibal 1y agoIt's not a "pop culture" interpretation, it's what Turing actually wrote in his 1950 paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" where he described his "imitation game", first framing it as a man trying to convince judges that he, not a woman he was competing against, was the woman. It was all about human perception--if some large fraction of human judges were fooled then the man (or the computer, in the shifted version of a computer trying to convince judges that it was the human) won. And the computer winning was operationally defined as the computer being able to think. The flaws in this are glaring.