Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6314151" data-attributes="member: 177">When he posited the initial forms of the test in 1950, he thought the number was 50 years (see below) - so, by his estimates, we should have had them over a decade ago.Here's the essential point where I disagree.&nbsp; In his 1950 paper, &quot;<a href="http://loebner.net/Prizef/TuringArticle.html" target="_blank">Computing Machinery and Intelligence</a>&quot; Turing said the following:&quot;I propose to consider the question, &quot;Can machines think?&quot; This should begin with definitions of the meaning of the terms &quot;machine&quot; and &quot;think.&quot; The definitions might be framed so as to reflect so far as possible the normal use of the words, but this attitude is dangerous, If the meaning of the words &quot;machine&quot; and &quot;think&quot; are to be found by examining how they are commonly used it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the meaning and the answer to the question, &quot;Can machines think?&quot; is to be sought in a statistical survey such as a Gallup poll. But this is absurd. Instead of attempting such a definition I shall replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words.&quot;He then goes on to replace the question, &quot;Can machines think?&quot; with the question, &quot;Can a machine imitate a human to the point where we cannot tell the difference?&quot; by way of the Imitation Game.Later in the paper, he says:&quot;I believe that in about fifty years' time it will be possible, to programme computers, with a storage capacity of about 10^9, to make them play the imitation game so well that an average interrogator will not have more than 70 per cent chance of making the right identification after five minutes of questioning. The original question, &quot;Can machines think?&quot; I believe to be too meaningless to deserve discussion. Nevertheless I believe that at the end of the century the use of words and general educated opinion will have altered so much that one will be able to speak of machines thinking without expecting to be contradicted. &quot;(We note that 10^9 binary digits, a gigabit, was surpassed long ago - we now think in terms of machines with tera- and peta-bytes of memory, and talk about *transfer* speeds in the gigabit per second range.&nbsp; Another point on which Turing turned out to be optimistic.)So, an explicit statement that he expects folks can create machines to play the imitation game, but *not* a statement that they should be programmed to do anything else.&nbsp; It does not need to be in the context of a machine built for some other purpose, that also happens to be put to the game.&nbsp; Now, he had his own personal beliefs, and he calls them out as such - he expected the best way to get a machine that'll play the game well would be to create a machine that could learn, and that &quot;intelligence&quot; would arise as an emergent quality.&nbsp; But he allowed that he could be incorrect as to the path to reach the goal.&nbsp; He also noted that his own learning machine would be self-modifying.&nbsp; A programmer might write code and start it, but he would not know what it looked like at the end.As a scientist, then, he must then have a test that will determine the quality *without* basing it in the details of the implementation!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 6314151, member: 177"] When he posited the initial forms of the test in 1950, he thought the number was 50 years (see below) - so, by his estimates, we should have had them over a decade ago. Here's the essential point where I disagree. In his 1950 paper, "[url=http://loebner.net/Prizef/TuringArticle.html]Computing Machinery and Intelligence[/url]" Turing said the following: [I]"I propose to consider the question, "Can machines think?" This should begin with definitions of the meaning of the terms "machine" and "think." The definitions might be framed so as to reflect so far as possible the normal use of the words, but this attitude is dangerous, If the meaning of the words "machine" and "think" are to be found by examining how they are commonly used it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the meaning and the answer to the question, "Can machines think?" is to be sought in a statistical survey such as a Gallup poll. But this is absurd. Instead of attempting such a definition I shall replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words."[/I] He then goes on to replace the question, "Can machines think?" with the question, "Can a machine imitate a human to the point where we cannot tell the difference?" by way of the Imitation Game. Later in the paper, he says: [I]"I believe that in about fifty years' time it will be possible, to programme computers, with a storage capacity of about 10^9, to make them play the imitation game so well that an average interrogator will not have more than 70 per cent chance of making the right identification after five minutes of questioning. The original question, "Can machines think?" I believe to be too meaningless to deserve discussion. Nevertheless I believe that at the end of the century the use of words and general educated opinion will have altered so much that one will be able to speak of machines thinking without expecting to be contradicted. "[/I] (We note that 10^9 binary digits, a gigabit, was surpassed long ago - we now think in terms of machines with tera- and peta-bytes of memory, and talk about *transfer* speeds in the gigabit per second range. Another point on which Turing turned out to be optimistic.) So, an explicit statement that he expects folks can create machines to play the imitation game, but *not* a statement that they should be programmed to do anything else. It does not need to be in the context of a machine built for some other purpose, that also happens to be put to the game. Now, he had his own personal beliefs, and he calls them out as such - he expected the best way to get a machine that'll play the game well would be to create a machine that could learn, and that "intelligence" would arise as an emergent quality. But he allowed that he could be incorrect as to the path to reach the goal. He also noted that his own learning machine would be self-modifying. A programmer might write code and start it, but he would not know what it looked like at the end. As a scientist, then, he must then have a test that will determine the quality *without* basing it in the details of the implementation! [/QUOTE]

Verification