3 ms·

First of. The Turing test has a rigorous definition. Secondly, it has been debunked for almost half a century at this point by Searle’s Chinese room thought exp

First of. The Turing test has a rigorous definition. Secondly, it has been debunked for almost half a century at this point by Searle’s Chinese room thought experiment. Thirdly, intelligence it self is a scientifically fraught term with ever changing meaning as we discover more and more “intelligent” behavior in nature (by animals and plants, and more). And to make matters worse, general intelligence is even worse, as the term was used almost exclusively for racist pseudo-science, as a way to operationally define a metric which would prove white supremacy. Artificial General Intelligence will exist when the grifters who profit from it claim it exists. The meaning of it will shift to benefit certain entrepreneurs. It will never actually be a useful term in science nor philosophy.

zeknife 8mo ago
>The Turing test has a rigorous definition Does it? Where?
- runarberg 8mo ago
  In the original paper https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~dprecup/courses/AI/Materials/turing1950.pdf https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~dprecup/courses/AI/Materials/turin...
throw4847285 8mo ago
This is what happens when a field of inquiry is dominated by engineers rather than scientists. "Shut up, it works" is the answer to every question.
famouswaffles 8mo ago
>Secondly, it has been debunked for almost half a century at this point by Searle’s Chinese room thought experiment. Searles thought experiment is stupid and debunked nothing. What neuron, cell, atom of your brain understands English ? That's right. You can't answer that anymore than you can answer the subject of Searles proposition, ergo the brain is a Chinese room. If you conclude that you understand English, then the Chinese room understands Chinese.
- runarberg 8mo ago
  You are referring to the systems reply: > Searle’s response to the Systems Reply is simple: in principle, he could internalize the entire system, memorizing all the instructions and the database, and doing all the calculations in his head. He could then leave the room and wander outdoors, perhaps even conversing in Chinese. But he still would have no way to attach “any meaning to the formal symbols”. The man would now be the entire system, yet he still would not understand Chinese. For example, he would not know the meaning of the Chinese word for hamburger. He still cannot get semantics from syntax. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/#SystRepl https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/#SystRepl
  - throw310822 8mo ago
    > The man would now be the entire system, yet he still would not understand Chinese. Really, here the only issue is Searle's inability to grasp the concept that the process is what does the understanding, not the person (or machine, or neurons) that performs it.

zeknife 8mo ago

>The Turing test has a rigorous definition Does it? Where?

runarberg 8mo ago
In the original paper https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~dprecup/courses/AI/Materials/turing1950.pdf https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~dprecup/courses/AI/Materials/turin...

throw4847285 8mo ago

This is what happens when a field of inquiry is dominated by engineers rather than scientists. "Shut up, it works" is the answer to every question.

famouswaffles 8mo ago

>Secondly, it has been debunked for almost half a century at this point by Searle’s Chinese room thought experiment. Searles thought experiment is stupid and debunked nothing. What neuron, cell, atom of your brain understands English ? That's right. You can't answer that anymore than you can answer the subject of Searles proposition, ergo the brain is a Chinese room. If you conclude that you understand English, then the Chinese room understands Chinese.

runarberg 8mo ago
You are referring to the systems reply: > Searle’s response to the Systems Reply is simple: in principle, he could internalize the entire system, memorizing all the instructions and the database, and doing all the calculations in his head. He could then leave the room and wander outdoors, perhaps even conversing in Chinese. But he still would have no way to attach “any meaning to the formal symbols”. The man would now be the entire system, yet he still would not understand Chinese. For example, he would not know the meaning of the Chinese word for hamburger. He still cannot get semantics from syntax. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/#SystRepl https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/#SystRepl
- throw310822 8mo ago
  > The man would now be the entire system, yet he still would not understand Chinese. Really, here the only issue is Searle's inability to grasp the concept that the process is what does the understanding, not the person (or machine, or neurons) that performs it.