4 ms·

See my response here, you are also reading way too far in to it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9085587 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9085587 It

See my response here, you are also reading way too far in to it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9085587 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9085587 It doesn't give a computer any chance to argue for treatment, it's about whether or not an average interrogator will be fooled by it. Sure machine rights are an interesting thought - but the Turing Test as outlined in the "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" paper isn't related to machine rights. Anytime a computer says "no" without good reason to "sudo shutdown now", the plug will be pulled on it. I agree with you that it isn't clear that the Turing Test has any meaning whatsoever. I'm not sure there ARE great implications from machines eventually being able to fool humans. Plenty of things can fool humans, paintings, mirrors, animals. And not all humans are equal in determining whether they are interacting with another human or not.

kybernetikos 12y ago
I'm sure you're right about what Turing intended the test be used for, but I think the question of whether a machine can fool a person into treating it like another person absolutely has relevance to the question of machine rights. And unlike 'intelligence', there are concrete steps to be taken given some answers to the question as to what rights a particular program should have.
- throwawayaway 12y ago
  > can fool a person into treating it like another person "perceiving something as something" and "treating something as something", different verbs. Turing tests aren't about treatment, they are about perception. The field is wide open for thought tests or games on how to "treat" computers so I would say knock yourself out and make a better one. The Turing test doesn't do a whole lot of good at answering those questions or for that matter any questions. Other than "will a computer be able to fool a human eventually". The notion of machine rights existing at all is evidence that Turing's prediction that the way intelligence is thought of would change, but still most people would challenge the idea that computers think. Maybe in another 65 years that will change further - and machine rights will no longer be a fringe idea.
  - kybernetikos 12y ago
    > "perceiving something as something" and "treating something as something", different verbs. Well yes, but if you perceive something as something that you will treat it as if it were that thing. And that is exactly what would happen during a successful Turing test - the computer would be treated as if it were a human by the judge.
    - throwawayaway 12y ago
      your position is trivially falsifiable - mistakenly interact with an irc bot or an automated telephone service as if it were human, then on realisation - you treat it like a machine again.

kybernetikos 12y ago

I'm sure you're right about what Turing intended the test be used for, but I think the question of whether a machine can fool a person into treating it like another person absolutely has relevance to the question of machine rights. And unlike 'intelligence', there are concrete steps to be taken given some answers to the question as to what rights a particular program should have.

throwawayaway 12y ago
> can fool a person into treating it like another person "perceiving something as something" and "treating something as something", different verbs. Turing tests aren't about treatment, they are about perception. The field is wide open for thought tests or games on how to "treat" computers so I would say knock yourself out and make a better one. The Turing test doesn't do a whole lot of good at answering those questions or for that matter any questions. Other than "will a computer be able to fool a human eventually". The notion of machine rights existing at all is evidence that Turing's prediction that the way intelligence is thought of would change, but still most people would challenge the idea that computers think. Maybe in another 65 years that will change further - and machine rights will no longer be a fringe idea.
- kybernetikos 12y ago
  > "perceiving something as something" and "treating something as something", different verbs. Well yes, but if you perceive something as something that you will treat it as if it were that thing. And that is exactly what would happen during a successful Turing test - the computer would be treated as if it were a human by the judge.
  - throwawayaway 12y ago
    your position is trivially falsifiable - mistakenly interact with an irc bot or an automated telephone service as if it were human, then on realisation - you treat it like a machine again.