IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Hey, it passes the Turing test! :)
And more since it did the phone dialing and held a verbal conversation of sorts.

Wikipedia
The Turing test, developed by Alan Turing in 1950, is a test of a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behavior equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human. Turing proposed that a human evaluator would judge natural language conversations between a human and a machine designed to generate human-like responses. The evaluator would be aware that one of the two partners in conversation is a machine, and all participants would be separated from one another. The conversation would be limited to a text-only channel such as a computer keyboard and screen so the result would not depend on the machine's ability to render words as speech.[2] If the evaluator 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 correct answers to questions, only how closely answers resemble those a human would give.
Alex

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

-- Isaac Asimov
New *Which* Turing test?
Has anyone considered the degree to which telemarketing and customer "service" scripts have lowered the bar for "human"?
--

Drew
New +4 delicious snark ;^>
New It’s years since I regarded the Turing test as a valid measure
…of machine sentience. Of course the Wikipedia entry speaks merely of “a test of a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behavior” (emphasis added), and perhaps I’m splitting hairs here, but I draw a distinction between exhibiting something and manifesting it. I think that during the next few years we are going to see astonishing prodigies of machine intelligences persuasively simulating “intelligent behavior” in contexts increasingly broader, but to the extent that these feats manifest sentience, it will be the sentience of teams of gifted and hardworking programmers and engineers.

This being said, I do not in the least deprecate what these teams have accomplished. I’m inclined to agree with the authors of the referenced article that this salient of research and development will not itself lead to machine sentience, but I believe that it will prove ultimately to be one of the major tributaries feeding into the realization of that goal, should human industrial/technological civilization endure long enough to produce this. And I do believe that the goal is feasible, that there is nothing that meatware can do in this line that can’t be matched inorganically.

It’s odd to be approaching a decade, the 2020s, that a few of us here are unlikely to ride to its end. I’ll never know the Martian equivalent of Neil Armstrong, but I’ve seen detailed pictures of what Neil—or Nell—will see. I’ve looked upon images of the gas and ice giants, to say nothing of Pluto, that planetary astronomers of the 1950s would have given their left nuts to examine. And while I don’t expect I’ll see a better-housebroken version of HAL 9000, I believe that (with the caveat noted above), something very like it will emerge before my youngest collateral relatives have reached middle age, and I’ll predict further that this machine intelligence, likely a distributed emergent phenomenon, will have existed for a few years before anyone becomes aware of it.

cordially,
     a bruise, that’ll leave - (rcareaga) - (10)
         Hey, it passes the Turing test! :) - (a6l6e6x) - (3)
             *Which* Turing test? - (drook) - (1)
                 +4 delicious snark ;^> -NT - (Ashton)
             It’s years since I regarded the Turing test as a valid measure - (rcareaga)
         sat on a presentation a while back AI call center replacement - (boxley) - (3)
             That's only $82K per. Was that to buy and use for years and years? -NT - (a6l6e6x) - (2)
                 that was annual -NT - (boxley)
                 Hmmm... - (hnick)
         Au contraire - (pwhysall)
         Bits and pieces I've heard of it... - (Another Scott)

IFKK
55 ms