3 ms·
It seems strange to me to invoke Turing's test when discussing a highly defined problem such as playing a FPS. I think the strength of the original test is tha
by techdmn 14y ago
It seems strange to me to invoke Turing's test when discussing a highly defined problem such as playing a FPS. I think the strength of the original test is that a conversation is by nature very open. When you change the test to a game with clear scoring criteria, both humans and computers will tend toward optimization strategies that may become difficult to distinguish.
- esolyt 14y agoThis is immediately what I thought when I saw the title. It is pretty difficult to tell a human from a bot when you only have a very small set of predetermined actions.
- romaniv 14y agoI think many people in IT want to believe in "AI that's as good as human" so much that they erode the notions of humanity to make computers pass. For example, a chat bot can certainly behave as the worst chat user, but that doesn't mean they can hold an intelligent conversions, which is really what we should care about. AI should simulate human intelligence, but very often all we're seeing is simulation of human stupidity. That's what happened in this case as well. To me, good AI would be characterized by ability to handle highly unusual situations, not by mimicking irrational behavior.
- calinet6 14y agoYeah, they haven't passed the Turing test, which is a test of very complex and difficult problems (ones which humans do effortlessly but computers cannot emulate). This is a much simpler set of behaviors for a computer to emulate. It's an interesting test of AI for sure, but it shouldn't be called a Turing test.
- ZoFreX 14y agoI was debating whether to call it a modified Turing test in the title, but had already editorialised it quite a lot. What was interesting though is that the bots and humans did not converge on optimization strategies, and part of appearing human was programming irrational behaviour (such as grudges) into the bots.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- baddox 14y agoYes. The assumption behind the Turing test (a reasonable one, methinks) is that human language is as "strong" of a test as you can devise. That said, this article was about an AI that was designed to appear human, not one that tried to perform optimally. It would be trivial to create an FPS AI that performed literally optimally, but it would be extremely easy for a human player to notice this ("WTF, there's no way to get a headshot every single time!") and conclude that it's a bot.