Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6312786" data-attributes="member: 177">I think the core problem with what is in the news is that it has actually done an ed-run around the concept of the Turing Test.&nbsp; You complain that they didn't build a &quot;True AI&quot; - Turing would say that the idea of a &quot;true AI&quot; is rubbish.&nbsp; &quot;True AI&quot; carries around a bunch of preconceptions as to what intelligence is.&nbsp; The point of the Turing Test is that we don't know how to measure thought, so we cannot define a &quot;true AI&quot; to begin with.&nbsp; Turing basically approached the problem with the idea that, &quot;if it looks, walks, and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck&quot;.&nbsp; We know humans think by way of their responses to their world, so we should apply the same to computers.&nbsp; Turing suggested that if a computer could consistently fool humans, then it was, for all intents and purposes, a thinking machine.The big point here is *consistently*.&nbsp; By reducing the threshold for passing to fooling a mere 30% of judges, and by allowing the &quot;pretend to not be a native speaker&quot; trick, the organizers actually tossed the check for doing this consistently out the window.&nbsp; The chatbot in question can only manage to win the game in the confines of a carefully controlled situation, not a general conversation.Now, eventually, we may be able to create a chatbot good enough to pass a real Turing Test.&nbsp; Then, we'll have something interesting - and perhaps we'll learn what &quot;true AI&quot; is, rather than defining it before we begin.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 6312786, member: 177"] I think the core problem with what is in the news is that it has actually done an ed-run around the concept of the Turing Test. You complain that they didn't build a "True AI" - Turing would say that the idea of a "true AI" is rubbish. "True AI" carries around a bunch of preconceptions as to what intelligence is. The point of the Turing Test is that [I]we don't know how to measure thought[/I], so we cannot define a "true AI" to begin with. Turing basically approached the problem with the idea that, "if it looks, walks, and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck". We know humans think by way of their responses to their world, so we should apply the same to computers. Turing suggested that if a computer could consistently fool humans, then it was, for all intents and purposes, a thinking machine. The big point here is *consistently*. By reducing the threshold for passing to fooling a mere 30% of judges, and by allowing the "pretend to not be a native speaker" trick, the organizers actually tossed the check for doing this consistently out the window. The chatbot in question can only manage to win the game in the confines of a carefully controlled situation, not a general conversation. Now, eventually, we may be able to create a chatbot good enough to pass a real Turing Test. Then, we'll have something interesting - and perhaps we'll learn what "true AI" is, rather than defining it before we begin. [/QUOTE]

Verification