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

111–120 of 164 posts

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

#111

Post by crusso »

fooqux wrote: post #100
crusso wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

I'm with you. I might have said it a little differently in that I believe that rights are societal conventions and written agreements that we give each other and protect for one another. Without conscious agreement to the system in which those rights exist, other bases need to be established.

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

#112

Post by wlievens »

coldtea wrote: post #104
balls187 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might say he is the Ken Rockwell of Computer Science.

Yeah, if only Ken Rockwell was not entirely sane, and said things that make sense for the market segment he refers too. If anything, it's the pixel-peepers and the "I need a bigger lens" that are non-scientific nuts (essentially gear fashion victims, who would buy a $10,000 Leica when a $1000 Nikon can give the same results).

I'm pretty sure that in the hands of a sufficiently skilled photographer, that Leica does produce a better picture. The quality of the sensor is objectively better.

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

#113

Post by redshirtrob »

damon_c wrote: post #86
drzaiusapelord wrote: post #28

The answers Ray got back are borderline embarrassing. They're designed to deflect the question by ignoring the request and asking another unrelated question or deflecting by humor. These are common ploys in faking AI chat. Hell, what 13 yo calls himself a "little boy?" I was in 8th grade at 13 and looking forward to high school. I can't imagine calling myself a "little boy" at an age when some of my peers were sexual…

Clearly if the criteria for passing the Turing test rests on this 30% of judges "fooled" threshold, we need to add a screen for the judges themselves...

Yeah, I'd like to see if those "judges" could pass the Turing Test themselves.

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

#114

Post by fooqux »

jgrahamc wrote: post #8
gpjt wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Kevin Warwick is the chap who had an RFID (or similar) chip implanted in his arm and put out a press release declaring himself a cyborg: http://www.kevinwarwick.com/Cyborg1.htm

Yes, I wasn't going to mention that because I've had a cybernetic cat (by Warwick's standards) for years. And his definition of a cyborg here is bullshit. Anyone with a heart pacemaker is much closer to a cyborg than someone with a RFID chip in their arm. Hell, they are being kept alive by a machine! The first pacemaker implants date to the late 1950s.

I've always given him the benefit of doubt and assumed he wasn't claiming to be the first cyborg, but rather to inform people that hey, we're all cyborgs.

I agree that placing my brain in a robot suit would classify, and probably replacing my arm with a full robotic arm. What about heart replacements, or eyes? Where do you draw the line?

Personally, given the definition of cyborg being "something with both mechanical and organic parts" I think all the above and yes, even placing an RFID chip in your arm, would make you a cyborg whether you accept it or not.

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

#115

Post by jgrahamc »

fooqux wrote: post #114
jgrahamc wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I wasn't going to mention that because I've had a cybernetic cat (by Warwick's standards) for years. And his definition of a cyborg here is bullshit. Anyone with a heart pacemaker is much closer to a cyborg than someone with a RFID chip in their arm. Hell, they are being kept alive by a machine! The first pacemaker implants date to the late 1950s.

I've always given him the benefit of doubt and assumed he wasn't claiming to be the first cyborg, but rather to inform people that hey, we're all cyborgs. I agree that placing my brain in a robot suit would classify, and probably replacing my arm with a full robotic arm. What about heart replacements, or eyes? Where do you draw the line? Personally, given the definition of cyborg being "something with both mechanical…

The trouble is he does claim to be the 'world's first cyborg':

"Professor Kevin Warwick, the world's leading expert in Cybernetics, here he unveils the story of how he became the worlds first Cyborg in a ground breaking set of scientific experiments. "

http://www.kevinwarwick.com/ICyborg.htm

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

#116

Post by md224 »

macspoofing wrote: post #48
ambler0 wrote: post #31

I think most people misunderstand the intent of Turing's paper in which he describes his eponymous test. I agree with Chomsky's reading, which he laid out in "Language & Thought": "There is a great deal of often heated debate about these matters in the literature of the cognitive sciences, artificial intelligence, and philosophy of mind, but it is hard to see that any serious question has been posed. The question of…

>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…

> Imagine such a computer program fooling every human it interacts with for decades at a time, I think that would say something about ourselves and I think it would render the question of consciousness meaningless.

Maybe we're operating with different notions of "the question of consciousness", but I have to disagree that a perfect simulation of a human mind would dissolve the problem. And by "the problem" I mean the Hard Problem of Consciousness, the issue of how the hell the subjective experience of being arises in a lump of bloody meat (or in anything, really).

I suppose my question to you is this: do you believe there is something it is like to BE that simulation, to have a first-person subjective experience from the perspective of the computer?

I agree with you that elevating certain aspects of reality to "supernatural" status is unhelpful; it's the equivalent of saying "sorry scientists, but this stuff is out of bounds." (I'm also not convinced that dividing reality into natural and supernatural is even a coherent distinction, but that's another discussion.) However, I have to take issue with your suggestion that the answer to consciousness is "much simpler... than we are willing to admit." It may turn out that a future science will come up with a very satisfying answer to the Hard Problem of Consciousness, but I suspect that this will require a paradigm shift so radical that it will make current neuroscience look like phlogiston theory.

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

#117

Post by bencollier49 »

bencoder wrote: post #22
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...

As someone who went to the University of Reading, this is pretty sad to me. I do wish they would stop devaluing my (and my peers') education with this nonsense.

Likewise.

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

#118

Post by seiji »

md224 wrote: post #116
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…

> Imagine such a computer program fooling every human it interacts with for decades at a time, I think that would say something about ourselves and I think it would render the question of consciousness meaningless. Maybe we're operating with different notions of "the question of consciousness", but I have to disagree that a perfect simulation of a human mind would dissolve the problem. And by "the problem" I mean the…

to have a first-person subjective experience

You actually can't prove _anybody else in the world_ besides you has a first person subjective experience. Trying to prove a magic talking box has experience when you can't prove another moist robot has experience is moving the goalpost too far out.

require a paradigm shift so radical

Not really, we just need more high speed training data. It'll all be available to way too many people, governments, and companies within the next few years.

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

#119

Post by mtdewcmu »

macspoofing wrote: post #48
ambler0 wrote: post #31

I think most people misunderstand the intent of Turing's paper in which he describes his eponymous test. I agree with Chomsky's reading, which he laid out in "Language & Thought": "There is a great deal of often heated debate about these matters in the literature of the cognitive sciences, artificial intelligence, and philosophy of mind, but it is hard to see that any serious question has been posed. The question of…

>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…

>>If it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and you can't tell the difference between it and a duck, it's a duck.

If, later, you discover evidence contrary to it having been a duck, can you revise your belief? Or was your having been convinced of its duck-ness sufficient to make it a duck?

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

#120

Post by metaphorm »

Good on Kurzweil for calling out a self-aggrandizing researcher at U. of Reading. the Goostman bot is pretty poor as far as chat bots go. utterly typical in capabilities (below average if you ask me) for this type of bot, and utterly unconvincing to non-naive judges.
Post reply on HN