Bold claim, but without any transcripts it's impossible to verify just how close to the truth the claim comes.
That's true. I want to talk to Eugine. Your suggestion seems to be the very minimum.
Turing Test Success
61–70 of 166 posts
Re: Turing Test Success
#62Where 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…
>to give each judge a conversation with one human and one computer, and for them to say which one they believe is the human.
I always assumed this was exactly what the Turing test was about. Guess I was wrong.
Re: Turing Test Success
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 lim…
> Instead, it is an operational definition of "intelligence" Exactly. It's a straightforward formulation of what a strong AI would be capable of. It makes no sense to have a restricted Turing test that can be passed by a useless chatbot. It means absolutely nothing.
Not at all. If you've been following this, the age of the test has been getting older and older for the past 15 or so years. They're not resting on their laurels at 13-year-old, next year maybe they'll make 14, and the year after that...
It's a way of having a better metric than pass/fail. This is the real problem with AI. Everyone expects that AI research should go: you put a bunch of programmers in a room, and they work for a few years and build an AI.
The best intelligence production we have is human child-rearing. This process has always taken 15-20 years, and is backed by millennia of research. Assume you have a digital computer capable of human-like thought. Without an example of a computer capable of learning faster, it stands to reason that raising the computer into an AI capable of conversation should take 15-20 years.
Of course, one thinks there would be a way to do it faster, but on the first go?
Re: Turing Test Success
#64When people imagine what a Turing Test conversation would look like, they frequently underestimate the conversation. I find Dennet's example of an imaginary Turing Test from Consciousness Explained to be a good counterexample: Judge: Did you hear about the Irishman who found a magic lamp? When he rubbed it a genie appeared and granted him three wishes. “I’ll have a pint of Guiness!” the Irishman replied and immediate…
Has Dennet never seen Facebook or Youtube?
Re: Turing Test Success
#65When people imagine what a Turing Test conversation would look like, they frequently underestimate the conversation. I find Dennet's example of an imaginary Turing Test from Consciousness Explained to be a good counterexample: Judge: Did you hear about the Irishman who found a magic lamp? When he rubbed it a genie appeared and granted him three wishes. “I’ll have a pint of Guiness!” the Irishman replied and immediate…
That excerpt reads to me like writing, not conversation. Someone spent some time polishing it. I know people who can talk like that extemporaneously, but I'd wager 99% of native English speakers wouldn't pass if that's the bar.
Well obviously humans are more slovenly than that. Though talking was never a requirement, and indeed the Turing test could be run through a succession of emails. Or perhaps a forum like HN. So it's not unreasonable.
Though your right, and if a computer were to try to imitate a human, a better strategy would be about as slovenly as my post is.
Re: Turing Test Success
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Is he talking about 109 bits? Because that seems pretty impossible to me.
That's almost certainly meant to be 10 to the 9th.
Re: Turing Test Success
#67When people imagine what a Turing Test conversation would look like, they frequently underestimate the conversation. I find Dennet's example of an imaginary Turing Test from Consciousness Explained to be a good counterexample: Judge: Did you hear about the Irishman who found a magic lamp? When he rubbed it a genie appeared and granted him three wishes. “I’ll have a pint of Guiness!” the Irishman replied and immediate…
Has Dennet never seen Facebook or Youtube?
Not when he wrote that (1991)
Re: Turing Test Success
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
That excerpt reads to me like writing, not conversation. Someone spent some time polishing it. I know people who can talk like that extemporaneously, but I'd wager 99% of native English speakers wouldn't pass if that's the bar.
Well obviously humans are more slovenly than that. Though talking was never a requirement, and indeed the Turing test could be run through a succession of emails. Or perhaps a forum like HN. So it's not unreasonable. Though your right, and if a computer were to try to imitate a human, a better strategy would be about as slovenly as my post is.
Yeah the turing test is often imagined as a writing/chat/email exchange - simulation of voice/voice recognition is not really a vital part of it.
Re: Turing Test Success
#69When people imagine what a Turing Test conversation would look like, they frequently underestimate the conversation. I find Dennet's example of an imaginary Turing Test from Consciousness Explained to be a good counterexample: Judge: Did you hear about the Irishman who found a magic lamp? When he rubbed it a genie appeared and granted him three wishes. “I’ll have a pint of Guiness!” the Irishman replied and immediate…
That excerpt reads to me like writing, not conversation. Someone spent some time polishing it. I know people who can talk like that extemporaneously, but I'd wager 99% of native English speakers wouldn't pass if that's the bar.
True. What the example highlights is that the Turing Test is not about 'simulating any old conversation' but is specifically about holding a convincing conversation with a human 'judge' who is likely to take the conversation is a complicated direction if they are taking their role seriously.
Re: Turing Test Success
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it might actually be in Civ5 that I first heard the following quote: "Asking whether a computer can think is about as useful as asking whether a submarine can swim." I think this is fairly insightful and relevant.
That's from Djigstra. I digress. Most of the times, mimicking Nature works very well. We tend to always remember our most spectacular failure, but that's a selection bias.
Cars don't run like horses, solar panels don't use photosynthesis, engines don't work like muscles, computers don't look like biological neurons, etc, etc.