Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Response by Ray Kurzweil to chatbot Eugene Goostman “passing the Turing test”

kurzweilai.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 164 posts

Re: Response by Ray Kurzweil to chatbot Eugene Goostman “passing the Turing test”

#91

Post by DonHopkins »

jacquesm wrote: post #50
ccozan wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed embarrassing. Actually, I can't believe that they called this chat-bot in any way intelligent. On top of that, this level of chat is the same since 90s, how come nothing has changed? And anyway, text chatting is/will never be a measure of intelligence, the Turing test in this form should never be considered. You really need to live 13 years as a boy to be able to answer as one.

I've seen better in the 90's.

I've had conversations with more artificially intelligent text editors in the 90's.

http://www.art.net/~hopkins/Don/text/rms-vs-doctor.html

Re: Response by Ray Kurzweil to chatbot Eugene Goostman “passing the Turing test”

#92

Post by blauwbilgorgel »

dragonwriter wrote: post #82
blauwbilgorgel wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The specifics of the Turing Test have been debated for decades. It is clear that different versions and interpretations exist, especially now we have moved on from behaviorism that was popular during the time Turing wrote the paper. From your quotes it only says that player A is to be replaced with a machine, not that player C is to be made aware of this replacement. I do agree that that is the popular interpretation…

> Kurzweil's line of questioning is not fair or normal or productive communication even if it was between two humans. A 13- year-old boy would have told Kurzweil to bugger off when tasked to answer 2+2 or wouldn't have responded at all. That seems to make it a very good way to distinguish humans from bots even if it isn't "fair or normal or productive communication" -- if humans could detect that a line of questionin…

Absolutely! This sword cuts both ways. Our bots are stuck in Searle's Chinese room, performing silly input-output matching tricks without understanding language on a deep human level.

An intelligent bot would indeed recognize unproductive lines of inquiry and should act accordingly. It would be more realistic if a bot answered that it has gotten tired of answering stupid questions.

Yet: If the Turing Test was made to avoid discrimination based on appearance, then applying the Turing Test while starting out with a tricky biased (unfair, unnatural, unproductive) line of questioning in the hopes of tripping up the machine... this doesn't seem in the spirit of the Test. The chatbots are at least polite enough to try to answer. Who not extend them the same courtesy as you would other humans, at least till you "figure" out that it may be a bot?

Again: It doesn't say in the paper that the interrogator is to be made aware that player A is now a machine. The interrogator will continue its line of questioning trying to distinguish between male and female. This line of questioning should be far saner, and easier for bots to interpret and play along with. By starting out like Kurzweil he places the Test on the shoulders of the bot: The bot has to find out if it is talking to a sane human or someone spouting gibberish. Kurzweil becomes Eugene's Turing Test.

Re: Response by Ray Kurzweil to chatbot Eugene Goostman “passing the Turing test”

#93

Post by zeidrich »

I could design chat bot that passes itself off as a human using speech to text.

  Interrogator: "Hello, how old are you?"
  Bot: "I'm 2 and a half."
  I: What is your name?
  B: Keegan
  I: I live in the Capital of the United States.
  B: Why?
  I: Because there was a job open and I needed one.
  B: Why?
  I: Because I need money in order to live.
  B: Why?
  I: You know, to buy groceries and stuff.
  B: Why? 
  I: What do you mean?
  B: I like butterflies!
  I: Oh, really? 
  B: Yeah, do you know butterflies come from cappilars?
  I: Yeah, I knew that.
  B: Do you like butterflies?
  I: I guess so.
  B: Why?
  I: They look nice I guess.  
  B: Why?
  I: I don't think you're a person, this is shit.
  B: SHIT!
  I: What?
  B: SHIT!
  I: Stop saying that.
  B: SHIT SHIT SHIT hehehe!
  I: Oh God damn it what did I do?
  B: SHIT SHIT GOD DAMN SHIT HEHEHE!
  I: I gotta go.
  B: OK, bye!
  B: SHIT! SHIT! SHIT!
I take issue with the example given in the article because nobody's going to reply with 2 sentences for every simple question. Likewise, it's bad with memory and reasoning. It should have had some trouble when he said he lived in the capital of the US and the capital of the country that built the great wall, but then again it was obvious that it didn't remember where he lived at all.

At least in my example a 2 year old doesn't care what you're saying. It's able to learn better than the other example, but still not a lot is expected.

I bet there's some cognitive age level that we're able to emulate well enough to pass off as human, at least in terms of verbal communication. I think it would be useful if we were better able to measure that, and raise that level slowly. Maybe we actually can impersonate a 2 year old well, then what about a 3 year old? 4 year old? Where do we get hung up?

If we can't get a 2 year old's cognitive processes down without a doubt, we should build on that first instead of trying to do something more complex without an understanding of how to make the foundations of that intelligence work.

Re: Response by Ray Kurzweil to chatbot Eugene Goostman “passing the Turing test”

#94

Post by sampo »

ddt wrote: post #67
macspoofing wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Fooling people into mistaking a submarine for a whale doesn't show that submarines really swim Why not? Presumably part of the act of fooling would involve 'swimming' submarines. I think passing a __strong__ Turing test actually does say something about our brains, cognition, and consciousness. And by a 'strong Turing test', I don't mean dinky 5 minute tests with a "Ukrainian boy". Imagine you carry on a 20 year rel…

My big takeaway from the Chomsky quote is that it's useless to ask if computers can think because one of the fundamental properties we associate with thinking is some biological/spiritual aspect. For a computer to "think", we'd need to redefine what we mean by think. And if we have to redefine what it means to think, why bother hailing it as an accomplishment to make a computer "think". The properties are incredibly…

> we associate with thinking is some biological/spiritual aspect

Well I don't.

> The fact that we have different words for "think", "compute", and "calculate"

Also my native language (Finnish) doesn't have separate words for "compute" and calculate". Both are covered by "laskea". (Also "suorittaa" is used, but that is "execute".)

Re: Response by Ray Kurzweil to chatbot Eugene Goostman “passing the Turing test”

#95

Post by fuzzix »

robotresearcher wrote: post #47
jgrahamc wrote: post #3

This is a nicely written and clear explanation of why the announcement by the University of Reading is bullshit. In fact, it is was more than they deserve. Way more. I would suggest shunning them is the right response. The University of Reading is, of course, the august institution behind: http://blog.jgc.org/2010/05/inside-rfid-virus.html http://blog.jgc.org/2006/12/midas-number-or-why-divide-by-ze...

There's not much wrong with the University of Reading. Kevin Warwick, on the other hand is a complex character who errs on the side of hype and unjustified self-publicity much too often. He is not taken very seriously in academic AI and robotics, except when he causes a collective face-palm with claims like this. The press release people at Reading, or pretty much anywhere else, do not have the skills to assess wheth…

"Every good scientist is half B. F. Skinner and half P. T. Barnum"

I've seen Warwick speak. He's not afraid to throw science away completely in favour of making a dramatic point.

I remember him claiming his flesh "embraced" an implant by growing around it when he described the typical immune rejection response he experienced.

Re: Response by Ray Kurzweil to chatbot Eugene Goostman “passing the Turing test”

#96

Post by lnanek2 »

Wow, did they put any work into that thing at all or just hook up the default chat bots we've had for a decade? It would be pretty trivial to just have it keep track of what it said and never repeat exactly, never ask where someone lives after a location has been mentioned in any way, not call itself a little boy and use correct punctuation, etc..

Re: Response by Ray Kurzweil to chatbot Eugene Goostman “passing the Turing test”

#97

Post by crusso »

fooqux wrote: post #90
ambler0 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we agree. And I think Turing's point in choosing a conversation as the test was to pick something that would indicate the vast range of human experience. If a computer could pass a strong version of the test as you describe, then I would agree that we would have say, as you do, "if it looks like a duck, .... then it is a duck." But I don't agree that it renders the concept of conciousness meaningless (or at l…

I'm not so sure that just because you can fool me that an object is a duck, that it is a duck. At least when applied to general AI. Nor do I necessarily agree that just because I can have a conversation with an algorithm, that we should give that algorithm all the rights given to humans. For example, if I say mean things to that algorithm, even one that can fool me into thinking it's another human for decades, is tha…

is it morally wrong for me to create a program consisting only of a singular red button, that when pushed, sets the sad flag?

We could discover tomorrow that there's a "sad ganglia" in the human brain that can be set on or off with an electromagnetic field. Does that mean that humans are ultimately biological machines without rights?

Re: Response by Ray Kurzweil to chatbot Eugene Goostman “passing the Turing test”

#98

Post by crusso »

cardine wrote: post #62
ccozan wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed embarrassing. Actually, I can't believe that they called this chat-bot in any way intelligent. On top of that, this level of chat is the same since 90s, how come nothing has changed? And anyway, text chatting is/will never be a measure of intelligence, the Turing test in this form should never be considered. You really need to live 13 years as a boy to be able to answer as one.

Not much has changed because the people, companies, and institutions capable of making such improvements are now focusing on things with actual real world application.

Yeah, and they're mostly in the financial world.

Re: Response by Ray Kurzweil to chatbot Eugene Goostman “passing the Turing test”

#99

Post by notahacker »

jacquesm wrote: post #50
ccozan wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed embarrassing. Actually, I can't believe that they called this chat-bot in any way intelligent. On top of that, this level of chat is the same since 90s, how come nothing has changed? And anyway, text chatting is/will never be a measure of intelligence, the Turing test in this form should never be considered. You really need to live 13 years as a boy to be able to answer as one.

I've seen better in the 90's.

I've seen human AOL users that were worse in the 90s...

Re: Response by Ray Kurzweil to chatbot Eugene Goostman “passing the Turing test”

#100

Post by fooqux »

crusso wrote: post #97
fooqux wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not so sure that just because you can fool me that an object is a duck, that it is a duck. At least when applied to general AI. Nor do I necessarily agree that just because I can have a conversation with an algorithm, that we should give that algorithm all the rights given to humans. For example, if I say mean things to that algorithm, even one that can fool me into thinking it's another human for decades, is tha…

is it morally wrong for me to create a program consisting only of a singular red button, that when pushed, sets the sad flag? We could discover tomorrow that there's a "sad ganglia" in the human brain that can be set on or off with an electromagnetic field. Does that mean that humans are ultimately biological machines without rights?

I think it's extremely likely that humans are going to have a very hard time in the near future coming to terms with the fact that we are what are "in" our brains, and that our brains are basically just biological computers whose inputs, outputs, and how it converts the two, are very much a part of the natural universe and can be explained. And once we can explain it, we'll be able to predict it and thereby control it.

I know what you're asking and the point you're trying to make, and I totally agree that it's an interesting problem. Perhaps one method is that non-humans will get rights when they evolve to the point to create their own rights and the means with which to stop other things from trampling on the rights they have assigned themselves.

Post reply on HN