My Conversation with “Eugene Goostman”
scottaaronson.com
My Conversation with “Eugene Goostman”
1–10 of 81 posts
Re: My Conversation with “Eugene Goostman”
#2after reading the chat i think Scott has passed Turing test
Re: My Conversation with “Eugene Goostman”
#3Here's an article by Robert Llewellyn (Kryten from Red Dwarf) about his conversations with Eugene Goostman at the Uni of Reading event
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jun/09/turing-test-e...
Re: My Conversation with “Eugene Goostman”
#4after reading the chat i think Scott has passed Turing test
Or maybe he wouldn't: remember that the scenario is that you communicate with "another end" not knowing if it's a person or a bot, and Scott managed to never answer the questions he was being asked, constantly stating the questions of his own. Try to imagine you really don't know if he's human; eh only asks questions, it can be very easily scripted.
Re: My Conversation with “Eugene Goostman”
#5after reading the chat i think Scott has passed Turing test
Or maybe he wouldn't: remember that the scenario is that you communicate with "another end" not knowing if it's a person or a bot, and Scott managed to never answer the questions he was being asked, constantly stating the questions of his own. Try to imagine you really don't know if he's human; eh only asks questions, it can be very easily scripted.
He does reply later on to mark the sensible responses, as well as call back to previous parts of their conversation (making a point about how any person would know that a Camel has four legs). Not to mention that his line of questioning is coherent.
Re: My Conversation with “Eugene Goostman”
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or maybe he wouldn't: remember that the scenario is that you communicate with "another end" not knowing if it's a person or a bot, and Scott managed to never answer the questions he was being asked, constantly stating the questions of his own. Try to imagine you really don't know if he's human; eh only asks questions, it can be very easily scripted.
He does reply later on to mark the sensible responses, as well as call back to previous parts of their conversation (making a point about how any person would know that a Camel has four legs). Not to mention that his line of questioning is coherent.
It's easy for a simple bot to refer to his own previous questions. Not much harder to refer to something the other side said too. So the only thing that remains seems to be claim that the reply of the other side has some sense.
Re: My Conversation with “Eugene Goostman”
#7The entire Turing test claim is Kevin Warwick's media hype. He issues a press release to this effect approximately annually. Basically, the way to tell if a claim related to artificial intelligence is rubbish is to search for the name "Kevin Warwick". This is what I wrote for his 2008 effort: http://newstechnica.com/2008/10/13/turing-test-won-with-arti...
Re: My Conversation with “Eugene Goostman”
#8Justified text, my eyes can't even parse that headline.
STOP FUCKING USING JUSTIFIED TEXT.
Re: My Conversation with “Eugene Goostman”
#9Clever as this is, how could it really fool anyone (aware of the existence of bots)?
Re: My Conversation with “Eugene Goostman”
#10There is nothing about Eugene that is useful to the advancement of actual AI, to our understanding of intelligence. Advanced chatbots are a parlor trick, the same way that rabbit and hat tricks do not help us develop actual teleportation systems, however clever and convincing they might seem to credulous people.
The difference between a trick and a technology, of course, is usefulness. Can your software do something useful, or is it solely aimed at deceiving people into believing it does?
It was interesting to see how large quantities of journalists were simply channeling the ridiculous claims of the original press release, without an ounce of critical thinking --choosing instead to pontificate on the inexorable progress of AI. Yet another Dorian Nakamoto moment for the mainstream media.