11–20 of 81 posts
It seems there are two ways to beat the Turing test. Come up with very clever algorithms or (probably easier) get some less discerning judges.
The whole thing reminds me of this: http://www.cleverbot.com/
Not Turing convincing, but I found it fun.
Based on this article, if 33% of the judges were fooled maybe some better judges are in order. It seems there are two ways to beat the Turing test. Come up with very clever algorithms or (probably easier) get some less discerning judges. The whole thing reminds me of this: http://www.cleverbot.com/ Not Turing convincing, but I found it fun.
"Turing test proves that 30% of judges are actually computers."
A recent Turing test at Reading University backfired after it was discovered that nearly a third of the apparently human judges were discovered to be less intelligent than a ZX Spectrum. Suspicions were raised when they were unable to carry on sophisticated conversations with the programs being tested and instead nattered on about banal topics such as their job, popular music, and another thing.
Ok I'm done. I don't write for free!
Anyway, Onion writers, make it happen.
There 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…
Completely lay perspective but couldn't applying machine learning to a very large number of conversations (top down analysis) with a large library of base content (bottoms up) using AIML or another language start to create something useful for many sectors?
Like customer support, education, entertainment, information retrieval navigating sites and apps...etc.
I don't know much about the space but have been intrigued by chatbots since I was a kid.
As for the questions around the utility - automating support functions for various non-critical services seems like an obvious potential application (think of all those "click here to chat to a live representative" dialogs on various websites).
Based on this article, if 33% of the judges were fooled maybe some better judges are in order. It seems there are two ways to beat the Turing test. Come up with very clever algorithms or (probably easier) get some less discerning judges. The whole thing reminds me of this: http://www.cleverbot.com/ Not Turing convincing, but I found it fun.
There 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…
Could you explain why advances in chatbots aren't helpful for advances in artificial intelligence? Completely lay perspective but couldn't applying machine learning to a very large number of conversations (top down analysis) with a large library of base content (bottoms up) using AIML or another language start to create something useful for many sectors? Like customer support, education, entertainment, information re…
In fact, advanced QA systems will probably never be convincingly human, as they are designed to be useful rather than to trick people. Watson is a good example of this.
Lmao that people are still taking AI seriously.
And Eugene nailed it. He introduced himself, ask me polite questions, I asked him polite questions, and we developed a slightly broken conversation, but yes, a conversation.
The idea of this is not "try to break the robot", the idea is "if you ran into this robot in real life and it was masquerading as a human, would you be tricked?"
That's the REAL question.