My Conversation with “Eugene Goostman”

I would get tired of typing "Invalid syntax."

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).

A twist on the Turing Test that would be fun.

Drop in 19 people and 1 AI into a chatroom, and then try to determine who is the AI. A lot of these adversarial questions may come off looking more like an aggressive AI than a human.

> The idea of this is not "try to break the robot"

Think of it this way. If you want to learn what constitutes strong chess play, will you learn best from playing a) yourself or b) a much stronger player?

Having a "collaborative" exchange with a chatbot is of the same strength as playing chess with yourself, for the purposes of investigating what "thinking" consists of.

The Turing Test is useful precisely when we are trying to "break the bot" as you put it; in fact, when the bot is pitted against a real human, who in that contest plays the role of the chess master.

Saying that Eugene Goostman "passed the Turing Test" is like crowning me World Chess Champion, based on the amazing record of beating 70% of a random sample of six year olds.

> "if you ran into this robot in real life

You wouldn't ever "run into" Eugene Goostman in real life, because it lacks the kind of generalist problem solving ability that would allow it to insert itself into any "real life" situation - an ability that even six year olds possess. It literally couldn't even get out the gate.

I do like the idea, but all it would require is at least 2 people putting forward group strategies.

For example, one person says "everyone repeat your username", so everyone does. Of course, the one who said this could be the bot, so another person would then have to put forth a different challenge (something similar -- repeat your username backwards, or something).