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

121–130 of 166 posts

Re: Turing Test Success

#121

Post by cLeEOGPw »

mcguire wrote: post #32
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…

That we don't understand how to define intelligence is exactly the point. That's why the Turing test is interesting. The problem with "looking behind the curtain" is that it traditionally boils down to what I like to think of as the subtle fluid model of intelligence. If you know what is behind the curtain, then obviously it can't be intelligent, because it is not running on the right hardware, for gooey definitions…

If you look what's behind the curtain of working brain chances are you no longer think of human brain as intelligent either.

Seems that for many people though, especially in CS, intelligence gonna be something that works in a way that is complex enough for them to not understand how it works.

Re: Turing Test Success

#122

Post by PythonicAlpha »

A real test of (Artificial) intelligence would be, must include that it is real capable of learning new things and developing and not trying to convince others that it has learned something (what in this case in my opinion is wrong, since it is just knowledge that is programmed into it -- meaning, not its own knowledge, but borrowed knowledge of the programmers).

I would also add, that the real prove must include a topic that the artificial person was not programmed for. (not like a Bayesian filter that "develops" by "learning" new facts about a fixed topic).

Learning, developing, evolving, that are the real marks of living and of intelligence (since, I would not part between intelligence and living).

Re: Turing Test Success

#123

Post by habitue »

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…

Ok, so Dennett is being eloquent and both participants are very intelligent, but "explain the joke" is probably a good test. The point is to get the AI to do something that requires meta-knowledge.

That isn't to say all humans have to have meta-knowledge, but the test passing would be more convincing if the AI could do something most everyone can do, like explain a joke.

Re: Turing Test Success

#124

Post by qbrass »

mixologic wrote: post #72
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.

If it could respond with a detailed, well thought out response, it wouldn't have to take the guise of a 13 year old who speaks English as a 2nd language in order to cover for it's shortcomings.

If it came up with any analysis of the joke that was vaguely correct, it's doing much better than anything out there. If it came up with any analysis of the joke at all, I'd be surprised.

Re: Turing Test Success

#125

Post by TeMPOraL »

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…

Is it really better? It sounds completely within capabilities of current robotics and algorithms. Mix up DARPA robots and AI from FIFA and you'll likely have a winning team.

Re: Turing Test Success

#126

Post by Bayesianblues »

I've often wondered if the Turing Test has been decoupled from signifying its original goal due to an instance of Goodhart's Law; namely, "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure."

Surely the ability to trick a human into believing an AI is a human is a milestone, but it was with an AI specifically optimized for this task. The deeper question is if the passing of the Turing Test in this case means we should ascribe consciousness to the bot, and I think none of us are willing to affirm it yet. I would suggest that this discrepancy is caused by the “measure becoming a target” and losing its ability to be a “good measure.” I guess this is why there is such a critical distinction between Artificial Intelligence and Artificial General Intelligence, which is where the Turing Test would have more weight.

Re: Turing Test Success

#127

Post by GhotiFish »

qu4z-2 wrote: post #91
GhotiFish wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, could you explain how a program that is capable of being mistaken for a human more than 50% of the time is more human than human? I'm pretty sure you're human, with a high degree of confidence, much higher than 50%. So to are you more human than human?

I believe that in the original formulation of the Turing Test the judges were asked to hold two conversations: one with a computer and one with a human. Afterwards they chose which of the two they believed to be the human. In that scenario, being identified as "human" more than 50% of the time would indeed make you "more human than human"; with a "perfectly human" program the test becomes essentially a coin-toss. In…

ahh. That's almost certainly what splike meant. Thanks.

Re: Turing Test Success

#130

Post by fchollet »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #125
fchollet wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Is it really better? It sounds completely within capabilities of current robotics and algorithms. Mix up DARPA robots and AI from FIFA and you'll likely have a winning team.

Please. That is many decades away, and the hard part about it is definitely not the soccer strategy AI...
Post reply on HN