4 ms·

The Turing Test is a thought experiment, not an actual test. No machine will ever pass because that is fundamentally a misunderstanding of the Turing Test.

iLoch 12y ago
What if we aren't real and only exist as software inside a machine?
DSMan195276 12y ago
Thank you for pointing this out. It always bugs me to no end when people talk about 'passing the Turing Test', it just shows a huge lack of understanding on what Turning was getting at. The important part of the Turing Test isn't whether or not we can build a computer to 'pass it', it's what is it that differentiates us from just being complex computers that can spit-out the right answer when asked, and if there actually is any difference. The question really is "If a computer can act exactly like a human, to the point where people can't tell the two apart, what exactly is the difference between that computer and a real human?". Most people would say that the computer can't "think" and a human can, but if the computer can shift bits around in such a way that it comes to the 'right' response, what's the difference between that and 'thinking'?
- icebraining 12y ago
  That's the point of the thought experiment in the paper, but that thought experiment includes a description of an actual test that can be made, which is what people call the Turing Test.
- newman8r 12y ago
  A fallacy is equating the ability to think alone with our human potential. It's not just thinking that has built human civilization. Coming up with the correct answer for any query is one thing - evolving from a single cell to manipulate our environment and having consciousness spontaneously emerge and then within a few thousand years discover many of the secrets of the universe and on the verge of becoming a god-like species if we don't destroy an entire planet first. When the machines can do that then we can compare apples to apples. Thinking is a nice feat and I think it's going to be solved in many of our lifetimes. It's definitely something I'd like to research more at some point. WE are the terminators - so... yeah.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    A fallacy is equating the ability to think alone with our human potential. But who equated them?
    - newman8r 12y ago
      Laypeople in general. I think that's part of the fallacy - the idea that a 'turing test' is some recognized standard for when computers are smarter than humans. But as others have stated it works a lot better as a thought experiment than something to directly pursue.
  - DSMan195276 12y ago
    I feel like you're missing the forest for the trees, but I have to say I find it somewhat disturbing that you feel as though you have to assert your superiority over machines by citing an argument that's basically "I evolved, you were created, so I'm better".
- squozzer 12y ago
  There's a t-shirt out there that says, "you < turing", and while it's intended as a nerdy insult, the question I have is how many humans could pass a Turing Test?
gojomo 12y ago
Hmm, that's a very literal and limited conception of the 'Turing Test' – almost computer-like! On the other hand, these two very smart human technologists (Kapor and Kurzweil) both seem OK with an actual-test reification of the 'Turing Test'. And then, the word 'fundamentally' has been thrown in to bluff confidence, but without providing actual supporting reasoning. That's a bit like some of the old ELIZA evasions. Based on the content, I vote the parent comment 'AI'. Did I get it right?

iLoch 12y ago

What if we aren't real and only exist as software inside a machine?

DSMan195276 12y ago

Thank you for pointing this out. It always bugs me to no end when people talk about 'passing the Turing Test', it just shows a huge lack of understanding on what Turning was getting at. The important part of the Turing Test isn't whether or not we can build a computer to 'pass it', it's what is it that differentiates us from just being complex computers that can spit-out the right answer when asked, and if there actually is any difference. The question really is "If a computer can act exactly like a human, to the point where people can't tell the two apart, what exactly is the difference between that computer and a real human?". Most people would say that the computer can't "think" and a human can, but if the computer can shift bits around in such a way that it comes to the 'right' response, what's the difference between that and 'thinking'?

icebraining 12y ago
That's the point of the thought experiment in the paper, but that thought experiment includes a description of an actual test that can be made, which is what people call the Turing Test.
newman8r 12y ago
A fallacy is equating the ability to think alone with our human potential. It's not just thinking that has built human civilization. Coming up with the correct answer for any query is one thing - evolving from a single cell to manipulate our environment and having consciousness spontaneously emerge and then within a few thousand years discover many of the secrets of the universe and on the verge of becoming a god-like species if we don't destroy an entire planet first. When the machines can do that then we can compare apples to apples. Thinking is a nice feat and I think it's going to be solved in many of our lifetimes. It's definitely something I'd like to research more at some point. WE are the terminators - so... yeah.
- icebraining 12y ago
  A fallacy is equating the ability to think alone with our human potential. But who equated them?
  - newman8r 12y ago
    Laypeople in general. I think that's part of the fallacy - the idea that a 'turing test' is some recognized standard for when computers are smarter than humans. But as others have stated it works a lot better as a thought experiment than something to directly pursue.
- DSMan195276 12y ago
  I feel like you're missing the forest for the trees, but I have to say I find it somewhat disturbing that you feel as though you have to assert your superiority over machines by citing an argument that's basically "I evolved, you were created, so I'm better".
squozzer 12y ago
There's a t-shirt out there that says, "you < turing", and while it's intended as a nerdy insult, the question I have is how many humans could pass a Turing Test?

gojomo 12y ago

Hmm, that's a very literal and limited conception of the 'Turing Test' – almost computer-like! On the other hand, these two very smart human technologists (Kapor and Kurzweil) both seem OK with an actual-test reification of the 'Turing Test'. And then, the word 'fundamentally' has been thrown in to bluff confidence, but without providing actual supporting reasoning. That's a bit like some of the old ELIZA evasions. Based on the content, I vote the parent comment 'AI'. Did I get it right?