Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6313712" data-attributes="member: 177">Well, now you've added a qualifier - &quot;plain&quot;.&nbsp; Imaging a bot that was designed to talk with people.&nbsp; But raise the threshhold for &quot;passing&quot; to something like 90%.&nbsp; Put in the rules that it must speak in the native language of the questioner.&nbsp; Now, it has to be a whole lot better at chatting.&nbsp; It must be able to parse and speak in something like natural language.&nbsp; It has to be respond reasonably to arbitrary input, in a non-repetitive way.&nbsp; It has to have memory of the conversation.&nbsp; It probably needs access to a font of information about the world equivalent to that in the mind of an adult human.&nbsp; It must have a persona and personal history that can be referenced to create reasonable-sounding responses.Is this now what you'd call a &quot;simple&quot; chatbot?&nbsp; All it does is chat, after all.&nbsp; It just does it really, really well, using all the systems a human would, with a different implementation.&nbsp; If it has all the systems of a human, what does that mean?We know, to great levels of precision, what a duck actually is, right?&nbsp; Even if someone built a duck robot (a duckdroid?) you know that someone with a scalpel could cut into it, and know very quickly if that duck was really a duck.&nbsp; We could do a genetic analysis, to see if it *really* was a duck (unless that duck was built by the Cylons, I guess...), and not another waterfowl subjected to Moreau-level manipulations...Turing's point in positing the test was that we do *NOT* have that same understanding of intelligence and thought.&nbsp; We do not know how to measure it, in general.&nbsp; We don't know what's really required to make a thing act in what we call an &quot;intelligent&quot; manner.&nbsp; The Turing Test really is a &quot;proof is in the pudding&quot; thing - if it really does act in a way that we'd call intelligent, well, maybe that's all that's really required for intelligence.&nbsp; This includes the possibility that &quot;intelligence&quot; isn't really as awe-inspiring as we'd like to think.&nbsp; Turing was prepared to be disappointed that maybe human intelligence isn't very grand.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 6313712, member: 177"] Well, now you've added a qualifier - "plain". Imaging a bot that was designed to talk with people. But raise the threshhold for "passing" to something like 90%. Put in the rules that it must speak in the native language of the questioner. Now, it has to be a whole lot better at chatting. It must be able to parse and speak in something like natural language. It has to be respond reasonably to arbitrary input, in a non-repetitive way. It has to have memory of the conversation. It probably needs access to a font of information about the world equivalent to that in the mind of an adult human. It must have a persona and personal history that can be referenced to create reasonable-sounding responses. Is this now what you'd call a "simple" chatbot? All it does is chat, after all. It just does it really, really well, using all the systems a human would, with a different implementation. If it has all the systems of a human, what does that mean? We know, to great levels of precision, what a duck actually is, right? Even if someone built a duck robot (a duckdroid?) you know that someone with a scalpel could cut into it, and know very quickly if that duck was really a duck. We could do a genetic analysis, to see if it *really* was a duck (unless that duck was built by the Cylons, I guess...), and not another waterfowl subjected to Moreau-level manipulations... Turing's point in positing the test was that we do *NOT* have that same understanding of intelligence and thought. We do not know how to measure it, in general. We don't know what's really required to make a thing act in what we call an "intelligent" manner. The Turing Test really is a "proof is in the pudding" thing - if it really does act in a way that we'd call intelligent, well, maybe that's all that's really required for intelligence. This includes the possibility that "intelligence" isn't really as awe-inspiring as we'd like to think. Turing was prepared to be disappointed that maybe human intelligence isn't very grand. [/QUOTE]

Verification