Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Turing Test Success

reading.ac.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 166 posts

Re: Turing Test Success

#71

Post by fchollet »

acchow wrote: post #37
fchollet wrote: post #33

The Turing test is to our understanding of intelligence what sleight of hand is to our understanding of physics. Tricking people, as a goal, is not conductive to science. A researcher claiming to have passed the Turing test instantly discredits himself as a prestidigitator looking for PR buzz. The present article is a textbook example of this. As a side note, if you are focusing on disembodied, language-based human-l…

Your opinion is not universally accepted. (Perhaps not even mainstream?). There's an element of behaviorism which stretches back to Descartes - how can you know that I exist? That I think? You can only observe through my behavior; that my behavior mimics yours. How then can we judge machines any other way?

The Turing test only tests for mimicry in human conversation, not "intelligence" as measured through a behavioral framework.

A better "Turing test" proposed a few years ago was, "develop a team of robots that play soccer so well they can win the World Cup". While not the best possible driver of AI research, the quest for such a goal would still drive AI research orders or magnitude better than "trick random people to mistake a chatbot for a human".

Re: Turing Test Success

#72

Post by mixologic »

codeulike wrote: post #43

When 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…

If a 13 year old responded with such a detailed, well thought out response as to the analysis of a joke, it would clearly never pass the turing test. If the response was "duh, he didnt realize he'd never run out of beer!" Then it might be more likely.

Re: Turing Test Success

#73

Post by mratzloff »

tritium wrote: post #24
mratzloff wrote: post #14

The 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 I don't agree. The prominent reason for "dumbing down" the judges follows the same reasoning behind decisions made regarding what constitutes "adequate" encryption. How can we gauge what will honestly happen out in the real world, today? Consider DES. It was deemed inadequate, but how to prove it? The EFF came up…

Since this chat bot passed the low bar set forth, do you believe that it is intelligent? Do stage magicians perform real magic simply because they fool the audience?

Re: Turing Test Success

#75

Post by Nimi »

skywhopper wrote: post #18

Where 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…

A blogspam linking to this page also claimed the alleged "boy" was described as a Russian boy to whom English is a second language. The official report from University of Reading doesn't mention this, can anyone shed more light on this?

http://gizmodo.com/this-is-the-first-computer-in-history-to-...

Re: Turing Test Success

#76

Post by andreasvc »

marcosdumay wrote: post #51
swombat wrote: post #41

Earlier 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.

His name is Dijkstra. I'm curious how you arrive at the conclusion that mimicking nature works most of the time, do you have some examples?

Re: Turing Test Success

#77

Post by andreasvc »

acchow wrote: post #35
thinkersilver wrote: post #20

I remember reading the first chapter on an AI book during college which laid out the objectives of AI research into two schools of thought.The first school of thought believes that AI can be achieved by mimicking real conscious beings. Remember when man first tried to fly, most devices mimicked birds and failed horribly. The other school of thought believes that intelligence has well-defined principles, when discover…

> The first school of thought believes that AI can be achieved by mimicking real conscious beings It's important to note the true meaning behind this school of thought - that mimicry and "true" intelligence are actually equivalent. Behaviorists believe this, and the validity of the Turing Test along with it.

The wording of your comment reveals your bias towards the other school of thought, Strong AI. But what is "true" intelligence? I don't think anyone has a clear definition of this, and in reality it's all just a philosophical quagmire. An important distinction is whether mimicry is equivalent to "true" intelligence, or whether it should be treated as such, barring a better litmus test. With that in mind, taking a methodologically agnostic perspective of adequately reproducing behavior that is predicated as intelligence seems like a much more reasonable goal to me.

Re: Turing Test Success

#78

Post by dayv »

fchollet wrote: post #71
acchow wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your opinion is not universally accepted. (Perhaps not even mainstream?). There's an element of behaviorism which stretches back to Descartes - how can you know that I exist? That I think? You can only observe through my behavior; that my behavior mimics yours. How then can we judge machines any other way?

The Turing test only tests for mimicry in human conversation, not "intelligence" as measured through a behavioral framework. A better "Turing test" proposed a few years ago was, "develop a team of robots that play soccer so well they can win the World Cup". While not the best possible driver of AI research, the quest for such a goal would still drive AI research orders or magnitude better than "trick random people to…

Though how accurate the Turing test correlates to "intelligence" can be debated, Turing himself believed that mastery of language demonstrates reasonable intelligence.

However, in this case, "Eugene" claimed English as his second language, which seems as close to cheating as it gets.

Re: Turing Test Success

#79

Post by andreasvc »

codeulike wrote: post #43

When 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…

I don't really follow your argument. Why should Dennett set the bar for the Turing test with his fictional example? And how is this example any different from Turing's original example about rewriting Shakespeare's "shall I compare thee" sonnet? This sort of conversation is more like a courtroom cross-examination, which is incidentally typically well prepared by both sides. A program that could pass such a test would indeed be a milestone, but that doesn't detract from the achievement of a conversational agent that pulls of a more spontaneous form of dialogue.

Re: Turing Test Success

#80

Post by codeulike »

andreasvc wrote: post #79
codeulike wrote: post #43

When 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…

I don't really follow your argument. Why should Dennett set the bar for the Turing test with his fictional example? And how is this example any different from Turing's original example about rewriting Shakespeare's "shall I compare thee" sonnet? This sort of conversation is more like a courtroom cross-examination, which is incidentally typically well prepared by both sides. A program that could pass such a test would…

I'm just saying that some people underestimate what it would take to pass a true Turing Test. The judges could and would take the conversation in any direction.
Post reply on HN