Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there somewhere online you can talk to him?
http://www.princetonai.com/bot/bot.jsp
[deleted]
Turing Test Success
131–140 of 166 posts
Re: Turing Test Success
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
I assume you mean weak AI. And I don't see how you can dismiss the meaning of passing this test so easily. Although it's a trivial example, I can definitely see such chatbots being applied for spamming purposes, which by definition exploits hapless victims.
No, I think that's a correct use of strong AI.[1] "Strong AI" is work towards general-purpose intelligence, at least as sentient, conscious, intelligent, or whatever term you prefer to use as you are. "Weak AI" is work towards usefully solving problems that would previously have been thought to require general intelligence, such as chess programs or self-driving cars.
[1] Although usage may be changing. Pity.
Re: Turing Test Success
#133Earlier 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…
The Turing test is not a definition of intelligence. Turing explicitly suggests the test in order to replace the question of the definition of intelligence. The test is most definitely a test, in the sense that it provides an estimate, rather than a clear cut definition. While the limits in this case were admittedly rather strong, this does not form a fundamental objection to the test. The bar can be set progressivel…
What is the limit, the ultimate height of the bar, then? A test that requires three score and ten years with a 50% success rate? Longer? The problem with the Turing test as a test is that it is always possible to game it, to create a system that can pass with any set of feasible limits without being able to do anything else.
The problem with positively defining intelligence is that all such definitions seem to end up begging the question and are therefore unsatisfactory to somebody. Which is what makes the Turing test philosophically interesting.
Re: Turing Test Success
#134Re: Turing Test Success
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
I assume you mean weak AI. And I don't see how you can dismiss the meaning of passing this test so easily. Although it's a trivial example, I can definitely see such chatbots being applied for spamming purposes, which by definition exploits hapless victims.
No, I think that's a correct use of strong AI.[1] "Strong AI" is work towards general-purpose intelligence, at least as sentient, conscious, intelligent, or whatever term you prefer to use as you are. "Weak AI" is work towards usefully solving problems that would previously have been thought to require general intelligence, such as chess programs or self-driving cars. [1] Although usage may be changing. Pity.
Weak AI is when a computer can (appear to) act intelligently, strong AI is when a computer can actually think (Russell & Norvig). Therefore, passing a Turing test would be a textbook example of weak AI, because you only need to simulate intelligence well enough to fool the judge.
Re: Turing Test Success
#136The 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…
I was fortunate enough to take a philosophy of mind class from Searle during my Computer Science undergrad. Very interesting experience.