4 ms·

That excerpt reads to me like writing, not conversation. Someone spent some time polishing it. I know people who can talk like that extemporaneously, but I'd wa

That excerpt reads to me like writing, not conversation. Someone spent some time polishing it. I know people who can talk like that extemporaneously, but I'd wager 99% of native English speakers wouldn't pass if that's the bar.

GhotiFish 12y ago
Well obviously humans are more slovenly than that. Though talking was never a requirement, and indeed the Turing test could be run through a succession of emails. Or perhaps a forum like HN. So it's not unreasonable. Though your right, and if a computer were to try to imitate a human, a better strategy would be about as slovenly as my post is.
- codeulike 12y ago
  Yeah the turing test is often imagined as a writing/chat/email exchange - simulation of voice/voice recognition is not really a vital part of it.
codeulike 12y ago
True. What the example highlights is that the Turing Test is not about 'simulating any old conversation' but is specifically about holding a convincing conversation with a human 'judge' who is likely to take the conversation is a complicated direction if they are taking their role seriously.
e12e 12y ago
Remember that the imitation game that forms the foundation for the Turing test pits males versus females, with the goal of the females pretending to be male. Allowing speech would normally reveal the males due to the voice being different - it was therefore suggested that the test be preformed in writing. [edit: Ah, I had the details wrong, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test ]
ghshephard 12y ago
I thought that was an obvious example of a computer system, as it was a labored and overly detailed description. I would have immediately flagged it as a computer system, and not a human.
- nine_k 12y ago
  You would label be as a computer, then.
- codeulike 12y ago
  Well OK, but if you had a conversation like that with a bot, would you be prepared to consider the bot as being conscious? Thats the deeper question that the Turing Test is really about, rather than human/not human.
  - ghshephard 12y ago
    You know - Marc Andreessen was tweeting about this today - and he held the same view as you. But, every book I've read on Turing, and every article I've read on the Turing tests suggests that the entire idea behind the turing test was to not get caught up on concepts such as "thinking" or "intelligence" - but to just posit a test to see if a machine could imitate thinking behavior. This then, provides a nice unambiguous target for research and development, without worrying about being caught up in the semantics of the conversation.
    - netcan 12y ago
      Perhaps the lesson is that no matter what your starting intention, the rules of a competitive game are going to be optimized for. You might start out with the goal of creating a general test of physical prowess. A 50m sprint, weight lifting contest or even a wrestling match is too specific so you invent a general game where strength, speed, endurance, etc. matter and you call it rugby. If no one had heard of the rules in advance, rugby would be a pretty decent test of general physical prowess. Maybe not 100% perfect, but out of a population of 1000, the 50 best rugby players would probably match most people's top 50 list of physical specimens well enough. But, once you have people training and optimizing for it, you find that (a) training for rugby specifically matters. (b) Rugby is optimizing for a particular set of physical characteristics. Chat bots designed to win the game are basically designed to fool people into thinking that they're human because that's the game. It isn't really a good proxy for consciousness.

GhotiFish 12y ago

Well obviously humans are more slovenly than that. Though talking was never a requirement, and indeed the Turing test could be run through a succession of emails. Or perhaps a forum like HN. So it's not unreasonable. Though your right, and if a computer were to try to imitate a human, a better strategy would be about as slovenly as my post is.

codeulike 12y ago
Yeah the turing test is often imagined as a writing/chat/email exchange - simulation of voice/voice recognition is not really a vital part of it.

codeulike 12y ago

True. What the example highlights is that the Turing Test is not about 'simulating any old conversation' but is specifically about holding a convincing conversation with a human 'judge' who is likely to take the conversation is a complicated direction if they are taking their role seriously.

e12e 12y ago

Remember that the imitation game that forms the foundation for the Turing test pits males versus females, with the goal of the females pretending to be male. Allowing speech would normally reveal the males due to the voice being different - it was therefore suggested that the test be preformed in writing. [edit: Ah, I had the details wrong, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test ]

ghshephard 12y ago

I thought that was an obvious example of a computer system, as it was a labored and overly detailed description. I would have immediately flagged it as a computer system, and not a human.

nine_k 12y ago
You would label be as a computer, then.
codeulike 12y ago
Well OK, but if you had a conversation like that with a bot, would you be prepared to consider the bot as being conscious? Thats the deeper question that the Turing Test is really about, rather than human/not human.
- ghshephard 12y ago
  You know - Marc Andreessen was tweeting about this today - and he held the same view as you. But, every book I've read on Turing, and every article I've read on the Turing tests suggests that the entire idea behind the turing test was to not get caught up on concepts such as "thinking" or "intelligence" - but to just posit a test to see if a machine could imitate thinking behavior. This then, provides a nice unambiguous target for research and development, without worrying about being caught up in the semantics of the conversation.
  - netcan 12y ago
    Perhaps the lesson is that no matter what your starting intention, the rules of a competitive game are going to be optimized for. You might start out with the goal of creating a general test of physical prowess. A 50m sprint, weight lifting contest or even a wrestling match is too specific so you invent a general game where strength, speed, endurance, etc. matter and you call it rugby. If no one had heard of the rules in advance, rugby would be a pretty decent test of general physical prowess. Maybe not 100% perfect, but out of a population of 1000, the 50 best rugby players would probably match most people's top 50 list of physical specimens well enough. But, once you have people training and optimizing for it, you find that (a) training for rugby specifically matters. (b) Rugby is optimizing for a particular set of physical characteristics. Chat bots designed to win the game are basically designed to fool people into thinking that they're human because that's the game. It isn't really a good proxy for consciousness.