41–50 of 81 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would get tired of typing "Invalid syntax."
> I would get tired of typing "Invalid syntax." Good point, but put yourself in the computer's shoes. If I were an artificial computer, talking to a human would drive me insane.
Opposed to natural computers like humans? That is very interesting terminology.
The entire Turing test claim is Kevin Warwick's media hype. He issues a press release to this effect approximately annually. Basically, the way to tell if a claim related to artificial intelligence is rubbish is to search for the name "Kevin Warwick". This is what I wrote for his 2008 effort: http://newstechnica.com/2008/10/13/turing-test-won-with-arti...
To make a chatbot that imitates someone specific might be easier still; I wish no ill-will to TempleOS (formerly Losethos), but I think I could quite easily write a bot that was indistinguishable from him.
The entire Turing test claim is Kevin Warwick's media hype. He issues a press release to this effect approximately annually. Basically, the way to tell if a claim related to artificial intelligence is rubbish is to search for the name "Kevin Warwick". This is what I wrote for his 2008 effort: http://newstechnica.com/2008/10/13/turing-test-won-with-arti...
I literally LOL'd. golfclap
I had an actual conversation with Eugene Goostman as if I was meeting a 13 year old from the Ukraine. 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…
Seems like a question a 13 year old in any country could answer.
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…
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…
It seems like you are looking for something more than the turing test is really about:
"The Turing test is a test of a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behaviour equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human. In the original illustrative example, a human judge engages in natural language conversations with a human and a machine designed to generate performance indistinguishable from that of a human being. All participants are separated from one another. If the judge cannot reliably tell the machine from the human, the machine is said to have passed the test. The test does not check the ability to give the correct answer to questions; it checks how closely the answer resembles typical human answers. The conversation is limited to a text-only channel such as a computer keyboard and screen so that the result is not dependent on the machine's ability to render words into audio."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He does reply later on to mark the sensible responses, as well as call back to previous parts of their conversation (making a point about how any person would know that a Camel has four legs). Not to mention that his line of questioning is coherent.
It's easy for a simple bot to refer to his own previous questions. Not much harder to refer to something the other side said too. So the only thing that remains seems to be claim that the reply of the other side has some sense.
I had an actual conversation with Eugene Goostman as if I was meeting a 13 year old from the Ukraine. 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…
This is no different than when a chess computers beats a human being. It doesn't matter that it does that by brute-force. What matters it that it beats the human. That's the endgame. There are no points for style in reality.
Human fool each other all the time by being disingenuous that doesn't mean that we aren't humans when we do that.
Lets get some perspective here.
I think it's important to acknowledge the distinction between chatting to a bot and not being convinced that it's a human, and having two conversations simultaneously, one of which is with a human, one with a computer, and figuring out which is which. Humans too can be surprisingly obtuse, go off at tangents, ignore your points, be boring and repeat themselves. As for the questions around the utility - automating sup…