2 ms·

But if I was talking to a bot and it was able to hold a conversation as complex as the one above, for a long time and without glitches etc, I'd be prepared to c

But if I was talking to a bot and it was able to hold a conversation as complex as the one above, for a long time and without glitches etc, I'd be prepared to consider it 'conscious'. You have to consider how difficult it would be to pass a Turing Test _reliably_ with a decent judge who took the conversation in interesting directions. re: Chat bots designed to win games: Some say that's exactly what we are! - The Social Brain Hypothesis of the evolution of human intelligence suggests that the reason our brains grew so big was that intelligence (via ability to deal with social groups) became a large factor in reproductive success. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_human_intelligence#Social_brain_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_human_intelligence...

netcan 12y ago
I guess what I am saying is that I think the Turing test was a way to demonstrate an idea without being able to define it specifically. I think the focus on Turing tests is interesting and has definitely expanded knowledge in this area. But, it is now an area within the search for artificial consciousness. It no longer works as a test for it as it would if a computer just happened to stumble on the test and pass it. That said, I do thing that where we are visa a vis the Test is a cool benchamark. I would be over the moon if one of the Turing bots got to the point where it could do a job, like being a customer support bot. Hopefully someplace slightly north of the Turing test goal post there will be commercial goal posts to encourage development, hopefully a conversational user interface. A convincing chatbot as a user interface would present lot of very interesting challenges.
- codeulike 12y ago
  Well yes there's kinda two different views of the Turing Test: 1) Consciousness is really hard to define so the Turing Test is a handy workable yardstick that AI can use as a milestone until we get a proper working definition of consciousness 2) (Hard-AI, behaviourist position) Appearing to be conscious and being conscious are the same thing. Hence the Turing Test is about as good a definition of consciousness as we are ever likely to get. Perhaps it could be tightened up a little - insisting on really long conversations with lots of complexity etc. But a good judge running a test over a longish time period would see to that.

netcan 12y ago

I guess what I am saying is that I think the Turing test was a way to demonstrate an idea without being able to define it specifically. I think the focus on Turing tests is interesting and has definitely expanded knowledge in this area. But, it is now an area within the search for artificial consciousness. It no longer works as a test for it as it would if a computer just happened to stumble on the test and pass it. That said, I do thing that where we are visa a vis the Test is a cool benchamark. I would be over the moon if one of the Turing bots got to the point where it could do a job, like being a customer support bot. Hopefully someplace slightly north of the Turing test goal post there will be commercial goal posts to encourage development, hopefully a conversational user interface. A convincing chatbot as a user interface would present lot of very interesting challenges.

codeulike 12y ago
Well yes there's kinda two different views of the Turing Test: 1) Consciousness is really hard to define so the Turing Test is a handy workable yardstick that AI can use as a milestone until we get a proper working definition of consciousness 2) (Hard-AI, behaviourist position) Appearing to be conscious and being conscious are the same thing. Hence the Turing Test is about as good a definition of consciousness as we are ever likely to get. Perhaps it could be tightened up a little - insisting on really long conversations with lots of complexity etc. But a good judge running a test over a longish time period would see to that.