"a computer programme that simulates a 13 year old boy [...] If a computer is mistaken for a human more than 30% of the time during a series of five minute keyboard conversations it passes the test."
In short they did nothing.
Turing Test Success
21–30 of 166 posts
Re: Turing Test Success
#22The Turing Test is a terrible measure of sapience. Generally it involves using "average people", who have been shown time and again to be overly credulous when talking to these bots. If the test is to be used at all, it should consist of computer science experts instead--people familiar with the technology and bot tricks of the trade. That the Turing Test is still used is proof that we still don't understand how to e…
I have a friend who used a sex chat bot to sell things to people. It was something very basic but incredible effective.
It made me think that we need to divide the turing test for different people: by age, by need, etc.
Re: Turing Test Success
#23Did they also run the experiment with an actual 13 yo kid?
Re: Turing Test Success
#24The Turing Test is a terrible measure of sapience. Generally it involves using "average people", who have been shown time and again to be overly credulous when talking to these bots. If the test is to be used at all, it should consist of computer science experts instead--people familiar with the technology and bot tricks of the trade. That the Turing Test is still used is proof that we still don't understand how to e…
Generally it involves using "average people" [...] it
should consist of computer science experts instead
Consider DES. It was deemed inadequate, but how to prove it? The EFF came up with a budget estimate based on what was reasonably affordable for a group of attackers, and built a machine capable of cracking DES within those budget constraints.
http://w2.eff.org/Privacy/Crypto/Crypto_misc/DESCracker/HTML...
So, let's apply similar reasoning to the concept of AI. If a group of people were to build an AI, and use it as an adversary against ordinary people, how difficult is it to manipulate and deceive ordinary people into taking action, and is it feasible to do so with AI?
Re: Turing Test Success
#25Managing to successfully imitate an ignorant, immature child 1/3 of the time is not what I would call a success , but rather a subversion of the entire intent behind the Turing Test in the first place.
I think you're probably expecting to see a 50/50 chance (or higher) of guessing it was a computer. But if you think about it, anything better than 50% would make it more human than a human. So is why the target is lower than 50%
It's not a random guess though is it? It's a sample of results.
Re: Turing Test Success
#26Where did the 30% requirement come from? Sounds like something the contest organizers added to make it possible to "pass" without fooling 2/3 of the judges. Using a young teenager as a character also seems like a cheat unless they had other 13-year olds to be the judges. The character needs to be a peer to the judges. Most 13 year olds behave oddly enough in the opinion of most adults that it's got to be easier to cr…
Most likely from here:
>It will simplify matters for the reader if I explain first my own beliefs in the matter. Consider first the more accurate form of the question. I believe that in about fifty years' time it will be possible, to programme computers, with a storage capacity of about 109, to make them play the imitation game so well that an average interrogator will not have more than 70 per cent chance of making the right identification after five minutes of questioning.
COMPUTING MACHINERY AND INTELLIGENCE
— A. M. Turing
Re: Turing Test Success
#27Where did the 30% requirement come from? Sounds like something the contest organizers added to make it possible to "pass" without fooling 2/3 of the judges. Using a young teenager as a character also seems like a cheat unless they had other 13-year olds to be the judges. The character needs to be a peer to the judges. Most 13 year olds behave oddly enough in the opinion of most adults that it's got to be easier to cr…
You can also pass the test this way by having "generous" judges contributing to the 1/3, which is likely because the judges are not impartial: they are emotionally invested in being part of a positive result. I wonder how Kevin Warwick himself voted, for example.
A more correct test (which admittedly doesn't cover this issue) would be to give each judge a conversation with one human and one computer, and for them to say which one they believe is the human.
Re: Turing Test Success
#28Did they also run the experiment with an actual 13 yo kid?
...Imagine someone releasing bots on XBOXLive. Your task is to guess which obscenity-screaming 13 year okd is real and which is a bot.
Some forms of Turing test are trivially passable with dumb enough humans.
Re: Turing Test Success
#29Although the Turing Test is interesting, it is not, in my opinion, all that useful. I would much rather see chess program level of performance in the domain of medical diagnosis, for example.
There are lots of other domains where I would be entirely happy to know that I was talking to an AI, if the answers I was getting were significantly better than most human experts in that domain.
Re: Turing Test Success
#30Where did the 30% requirement come from? Sounds like something the contest organizers added to make it possible to "pass" without fooling 2/3 of the judges. Using a young teenager as a character also seems like a cheat unless they had other 13-year olds to be the judges. The character needs to be a peer to the judges. Most 13 year olds behave oddly enough in the opinion of most adults that it's got to be easier to cr…
30% of the time, five minute conversations, a "simulated" 13-year old? At least "the conversations were unrestricted".
The Turing test is not a test. Instead, it is an operational definition of "intelligence", a very slight formalization of the idea that something is intelligent if it seems to be intelligent.
As a test, it obviously has to have some kind of limits like this "competition", but as soon as you put limits on it then it stops being useful and becomes both gameable and meaningless. The Turing test has already been passed, long ago, if you have limits suitable to the Doctor or Parry.