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

51–60 of 164 posts

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

#51

Post by hawkharris »

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…

I wonder if there's an analogy to be made here with security competitions. I'm talking about the "Earn $50,000 if you can hack us" events that companies use to illustrate the integrity of their systems.

The problem is that security competitions usually involve a carefully constructed definition of "hacking" and what makes a system "secure." Many people become so engrossed in the terminology that they forget to think about security from a practical standpoint.

"In the wild," as many people say, the lexical questions are largely irrelevant and the practical ones are king. It's hard to predict exactly how someone will conceive of and interact with a system. Trying to define those interactions with restrictive terms and metaphors tends to be counterproductive.

Admittedly, some of Chomsky's writing goes over my head at times, but that's what I take away from this small snippet.

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

#52

Post by DanBC »

blauwbilgorgel wrote: post #34

The chatbot Eugene Goostman did not pass Ray Kurzweil's version of the Turing Test. It passed the Turing Test as set up by the organizers. Turing never even mentioned the criteria that participants should be aware that they are possibly talking to a computer. This single criteria should not matter for intelligence IMO, because the whole point of the test was to abstract away the appearance. The other way around: a ch…

> Turing never even mentioned the criteria that participants should be aware that they are possibly talking to a computer.

What? Here's what he said. It seems pretty clear that this version of the game involves one human interrogator, one human and one computer, and the interrogator has to decide which is human and which isn't.

> The new form of the problem can be described in terms of a game which we call the 'imitation game." It is played with three people, a man (A), a woman (B), and an interrogator (C) who may be of either sex. The interrogator stays in a room apart front the other two. The object of the game for the interrogator is to determine which of the other two is the man and which is the woman. He knows them by labels X and Y, and at the end of the game he says either "X is A and Y is B" or "X is B and Y is A." The interrogator is allowed to put questions to A and B thus:

> C: Will X please tell me the length of his or her hair?

> Now suppose X is actually A, then A must answer. It is A's object in the game to try and cause C to make the wrong identification. His answer might therefore be:

> "My hair is shingled, and the longest strands are about nine inches long."

> In order that tones of voice may not help the interrogator the answers should be written, or better still, typewritten. The ideal arrangement is to have a teleprinter communicating between the two rooms. Alternatively the question and answers can be repeated by an intermediary. The object of the game for the third player (B) is to help the interrogator. The best strategy for her is probably to give truthful answers. She can add such things as "I am the woman, don't listen to him!" to her answers, but it will avail nothing as the man can make similar remarks.

> We now ask the question, "What will happen when a machine takes the part of A in this game?" Will the interrogator decide wrongly as often when the game is played like this as he does when the game is played between a man and a woman? These questions replace our original, "Can machines think?"

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

#53

Post by x1798DE »

The article's title is "Response by Ray Kurzweil to the announcement of chatbot Eugene Goostman passing the Turing test". Pretty critical distinction between that and reacting to it actually passing a Turing test. If the HN title is going to be changed for brevity, then it should probably be changed to something like 'Response by Ray Kurzweil to chatpot Eugene Goostman "passing the Turing test"', or something else that conveys the actual sentiment of the post (which is that this chatbot isn't anything special and isn't close to being able to pass any real Turing test).

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

#54

Post by protonfish »

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…

I wouldn't go so far as to say the test is crap, but I agree it is given more importance than it deserves. It makes sense that if humans are intelligent and a machine behaves in the same manner, we would have to conclude that the machine is also intelligent. That cleverly punts over the entire discussion of the qualities and mechanism of intelligence. Another thing to keep in mind is although the Turing test could prove an entity is intelligent, it cannot prove that a thing is not intelligent. The most intelligent non-human species on our planet won't pass, but it doesn't mean they are stupid, it just means they aren't human.

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

#55

Post by balls187 »

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…

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

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

#56

Post by billmalarky »

grok2 wrote: post #42
billmalarky wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does the term "august institution" mean. Can't find any good definitions on google.

au·gust adjective \ȯ-ˈgəst, ˈȯ-(ˌ)gəst\ : having a formal and impressive quality http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/august

Thanks.

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

#57

Post by StavrosK »

rickhanlonii wrote: post #29

Can anyone clarify this for me? > Professor Warwick claims that the test was “unrestricted.” However, having the chatbot claim to be a 13-year-old child, and one for whom English is not a first language, is effectively a restriction. Kurzweil seems to say that the bot lying is a restriction, but the Kapor-Kurzweil Turing Test Session rules explicitly allow the bot to lie about who they are[1]: > Neither the Turing Te…

No, he means that the restriction is that the bot is making it "easier on itself" by claiming to not speak English well. It reduces the expectations on itself by that trick.

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

#59

Post by PhasmaFelis »

rickhanlonii wrote: post #29

Can anyone clarify this for me? > Professor Warwick claims that the test was “unrestricted.” However, having the chatbot claim to be a 13-year-old child, and one for whom English is not a first language, is effectively a restriction. Kurzweil seems to say that the bot lying is a restriction, but the Kapor-Kurzweil Turing Test Session rules explicitly allow the bot to lie about who they are[1]: > Neither the Turing Te…

> Kurzweil seems to say that the bot lying is a restriction

I think he means that placing it in a limited domain of humanity, specifically one that would be expected to make lots of basic errors, is a restriction, since it makes things much easier on the bot.

What really gets me is that, on top of that, they arbitrarily declared that success was a 30% pass rate instead of 50%. The rest of it is bad enough, but how on earth did anyone think that was acceptable?

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

#60

Post by resu_nimda »

jere wrote: post #7

First thing I've read by Kurzweil that didn't make me rage. I fully expected him to chalk this up as more evidence that the singularity is well on schedule or he's going to win Long Bet #1. Glad to hear him being critical: >I chatted with the chatbot Eugene Goostman, and was not impressed. Eugene does not keep track of the conversation, repeats himself word for word, and often responds with typical chatbot non sequit…

I think your assumptions are somewhat unfair. Despite his bold and often fanciful predictions, he's a really smart guy with a history of impressive technological contributions. He's gotten a bad reputation in recent years for his outspoken certainty in the impending singularity (which, as seen in Transcendent Man, is somewhat tragically driven by the loss of his father and the hope of somehow reanimating his father's persona through technology), but he hasn't "lost it" or anything. I fully expected him to be critical of this test.
Post reply on HN