[deleted]
[deleted]
Turing test considered harmful (1995) [pdf]
11–20 of 23 posts
Re: Turing test considered harmful (1995) [pdf]
#12“What’s bigger Scotland or a toaster?” Show me an AI that can answer stuff like that
GPT-2 can do it perfectly well. --- The following is a dialogue between me, the interviewer, and KnowledgeBot, an AI search engine that always gives the right answer, explaining its thinking clearly enough for a human to understand. Q: When is a door not a door? A: This is a well-known pun. I remember the answer: "When it's ajar". This is a pun on "ajar", a state that a door can be in, and "a jar", an object that is…
>GPT-2 doesn't have a concept of self, so it constructs plausible in-character excuses instead.
Spookily similar to the confabulations (made by the left hemisphere in the brain?[0]) that people with brain damage often use to deny/rationalize their deficits (even denying paralysis sometimees!).[1]
Re: Turing test considered harmful (1995) [pdf]
#13There is a recent related article from Amazon Science if anyone is interested:
"Does the Turing Test pass the test of time?" https://www.amazon.science/latest-news/does-the-turing-test-...
Re: Turing test considered harmful (1995) [pdf]
#14“What’s bigger Scotland or a toaster?” Show me an AI that can answer stuff like that
GPT-2 can do it perfectly well. --- The following is a dialogue between me, the interviewer, and KnowledgeBot, an AI search engine that always gives the right answer, explaining its thinking clearly enough for a human to understand. Q: When is a door not a door? A: This is a well-known pun. I remember the answer: "When it's ajar". This is a pun on "ajar", a state that a door can be in, and "a jar", an object that is…
Is this real? If so, can you direct me to any quick resources to play around with this? I have only surface-level theoretical knowledge about machine learning or AI. But this looks fascinating and makes me want to learn more.
Re: Turing test considered harmful (1995) [pdf]
#15> Passing the Turing Test is not a sensible goal for Artificial Intelligence yes, but I never understood it as that. I thought it was more a philosophical thought experiment about humans and a reply to people who don't/didn't believe in (strong) AI. "You think humans are intelligent and have conciousness - but how do you know that another person has that?"
> "You think humans are intelligent and have conciousness - but how do you know that another person has that?"
That was more the point of the “Chinese room” thought experiment.
I always understood the Turing test to be the ultimate form of “When computers can do , they can be considered to be truly intelligent.” to put an end to all other such definitions which had been previously put forward as possibile criteria for machine intelligence.
Re: Turing test considered harmful (1995) [pdf]
#16Am I the only one that hates this incredibly overused title trope? Come up with something vaguely original.
Re: Turing test considered harmful (1995) [pdf]
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
GPT-2 can do it perfectly well. --- The following is a dialogue between me, the interviewer, and KnowledgeBot, an AI search engine that always gives the right answer, explaining its thinking clearly enough for a human to understand. Q: When is a door not a door? A: This is a well-known pun. I remember the answer: "When it's ajar". This is a pun on "ajar", a state that a door can be in, and "a jar", an object that is…
>GPT-2 doesn't have a concept of self, so it constructs plausible in-character excuses instead. Spookily similar to the confabulations (made by the left hemisphere in the brain?[0]) that people with brain damage often use to deny/rationalize their deficits (even denying paralysis sometimees!).[1] 0: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27484245/ 1: https://youtu.be/ymKvS0XsM4w?t=141
You can test self-awareness, if you can test if the program knows it will halt.
Re: Turing test considered harmful (1995) [pdf]
#18Am I the only one that hates this incredibly overused title trope? Come up with something vaguely original.
Nope, it's really annoying at this point. Try doing a search on Google Scholar for "considered harmful" -"go to statement considered harmful".
"About 53,000 results."
Re: Turing test considered harmful (1995) [pdf]
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
GPT-2 can do it perfectly well. --- The following is a dialogue between me, the interviewer, and KnowledgeBot, an AI search engine that always gives the right answer, explaining its thinking clearly enough for a human to understand. Q: When is a door not a door? A: This is a well-known pun. I remember the answer: "When it's ajar". This is a pun on "ajar", a state that a door can be in, and "a jar", an object that is…
Is this real? If so, can you direct me to any quick resources to play around with this? I have only surface-level theoretical knowledge about machine learning or AI. But this looks fascinating and makes me want to learn more.
Two sites:
https://transformer.huggingface.co/, which lets you cherry-pick the responses (but I didn't; I only discarded one autocompletion).
https://app.inferkit.com/demo, which I used for the prose completion – but it turns out that this is Megatron-11b (at time of writing), not GPT-2, so that's misleading.
Re: Turing test considered harmful (1995) [pdf]
#20“What’s bigger Scotland or a toaster?” Show me an AI that can answer stuff like that
GPT-2 can do it perfectly well. --- The following is a dialogue between me, the interviewer, and KnowledgeBot, an AI search engine that always gives the right answer, explaining its thinking clearly enough for a human to understand. Q: When is a door not a door? A: This is a well-known pun. I remember the answer: "When it's ajar". This is a pun on "ajar", a state that a door can be in, and "a jar", an object that is…
To be fair it didn’t know how to answer until you told it how to answer.