Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there somewhere online you can talk to him?
http://www.princetonai.com/bot/bot.jsp
HEEERRRROOOOOO
Turing Test Success
151–160 of 166 posts
Re: Turing Test Success
#152Re: Turing Test Success
#153Re: Turing Test Success
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It has been a while since I read him, and I don't think I ever got a satisfactory answer: how does he get around the unbounded recursion of the Chinese room argument?
Re: Turing Test Success
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Like I said, usage is changing.
I studied AI shortly after the "AI Winter", which is where I got my definition. Strong AI---working towards a general intelligence---was strongly out of favor, especially with funding agencies. It still remains so (but see Watson). But solving limited problems heuristically (or statistically) that are not otherwise algorithmically tractable (a loose translation of "would appear to require general intelligence") has always been a fertile field.
Turing's argument, which is a philosophical argument, is not meaningful if you put any limits on it---time, topic, behavior (really, Parry is better than the Doctor), which is why it is better thought of as a thought experiment. If you have limits such that it can be gamed, then yes, it is fair to say "you only need to simulate intelligence well enough to fool the judge." Which makes it uninteresting.
But the question is, if you can "simulate intelligence" well enough under any conceivable circumstance (and yes, all actual human beans will fail here), how can you say that it cannot "actually think"?
Re: Turing Test Success
#156The Turing test is to our understanding of intelligence what sleight of hand is to our understanding of physics. Tricking people, as a goal, is not conductive to science. A researcher claiming to have passed the Turing test instantly discredits himself as a prestidigitator looking for PR buzz. The present article is a textbook example of this. As a side note, if you are focusing on disembodied, language-based human-l…
How do you define intelligence, then?
Re: Turing Test Success
#157Earlier 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…
How is "winning at soccer" a better proxy for sentience than "able to hold up its end of a conversation"?
One of the ironies of AI is that trivial tasks for humans like recognizing a soccer ball, moving around without falling over, or, yes, holding a conversation are very, very difficult while difficult tasks, like playing chess or finding the best route on a map, are relatively trivial.
Re: Turing Test Success
#158Earlier 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?
His opinion is actually a mainstream opinion in AI, see for example the textbook by Russell & Norvig. Descartes was the very opposite of a behaviorist, namely a rationalist. I do agree that we don't have anything that is clearly better than the Turing test, but this just goes to show how far we still have to go.
I missed the AI Winter. Norvig survived it. I would imagine that colors his thoughts on work towards general intelligence. Also the fact that all AI research that has actually done anything interesting has been of the "weak" (as I learned to call it) variety.
But look at me, ascribing thoughts and intentions on a black box that I cannot be sure really exists.
Re: Turing Test Success
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was fortunate enough to take a philosophy of mind class from Searle during my Computer Science undergrad. Very interesting experience.
It has been a while since I read him, and I don't think I ever got a satisfactory answer: how does he get around the unbounded recursion of the Chinese room argument?
I never agreed with him completely on his views in this regard, but his main point is if you have a system that's governed by rules on input (Like someone looking up the answer in the Chinese room), there's no subjective understanding. So even if you had such a device(room) that behaved flawlessly, there's nothing in there that actually "understands" what's going on. The paper that the Chinese characters are written on doesn't understand, they're paper. And the person carrying out the instructions doesn't understand either, they're just following orders. So what's having the subjective experience/understanding?
The main point I took away is that he feels that consciences is an ordinary biological process, and a simulation of that process is not the same as the process. In the same way that a computer simulation of a stomach digesting food isn't the same as an actually stomach digesting food. No matter how good the simulation is, it doesn't actually digest food. So a simulation of consciences, isn't actually consciences, and doesn't have a personal subjective experience.