Validity of the Turing Test?

Post #6,268 by ChrisR 8/22/01 9:44:10 AM Reply	Validity of the Turing Test? I have my doubts about whether the Turing test really should be the litmus test for determining when a machine attains intelligence. The first problem with the test is that it says nothing about what the machine thinks about itself - or even whether it has a concept of self. Second problem is that it doesn't rule out the question of deception. The Turing test doesn't so much measure the intelligence of the machine as it does the gullibility of the human participants. Can they be fooled into thinking the machine is a fellow human? Anyhow, list me as one who thinks that the Turing test for intelligence tells us more about the nature of the human participants than it does the machine.
Post #6,298 by DonRichards 8/22/01 11:17:00 AM Reply	Good points But until something better is devised, I don't see many other options. "When it crosses my mind to do something, I don't ask why, I ask why not. And usually there's no reason not to, so I just go ahead. It's given me the strangest collection of hats"
Post #6,363 by ben_tilly 8/22/01 4:17:48 PM Reply	The best argument against the Turing Test is Eliza
Post #6,450 by drewk 8/23/01 12:05:06 PM Reply	No, the best argument against the Turing Test is Usenet Turing test is only a measure of linguistic compatibility. We can learn new words, but that's not the same as a new language. We can learn new grammar, but that's not the same as context. With sufficiently different context, anyone could fail a Turing test. Test an Aborigine via a text-only interface and I doubt he would "pass." This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Post #6,491 by deSitter 8/23/01 2:11:31 PM Reply	Don't You Need Numbers? The Hopi Indians had only three numbers - one, two, and many. Somehow this entire Turing thing seems hokey to me. In any case reality obeys the principle of complementarity and the superposition principle, and that can't be modeled as 1s and 0s since there is an inherently statistical element.
Post #6,592 by ben_tilly 8/24/01 10:25:50 AM Reply	Well purl passed the IRC test a long time ago Infobots have for several years been good enough to fool people into believing that they were just helped out by a real person. But yes, maintaining a coherent Usenet personality that looks somewhat normal would take some real work. Either that or it would act like Ashton. Speaking of which, Ashton, are you real...? :-) Cheers, Ben
Post #6,612 by drewk 8/24/01 12:43:41 PM Reply	How 'bout the magical Frenchman? This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Post #6,865 by Ashton 8/27/01 5:16:44 PM Reply	unReal.. but real-enough for Govt. Work. merely the facade Precisely as one ranks the other artifacts within the daily illusion we generate, on 'awakening'. And call those 'real'. ('You', of course would disappear were 'I' to disappear) Now as to the Real, I could only say tha Error 42: Undefined for this set. Topology error. Syntax error. Script error. Compile error. Program error. Execution error. Life systems terminated. SYSTEM HALTED
Post #6,368 by tablizer 8/22/01 4:24:38 PM Reply	Re: Fooling the Turing Test First of all, emulating the speach of an 18 month-old is not that hard. But, extrapolating that to a 5-year-old and then further is a bit too presumptuious. I can build an emulation of a 9 month child, although my Puke-A-Tron still has a few glitches in it. Did Turing specify what kind of human was to be emulated? The person on the other side could possibly mistake some of the current chat bots for skiztofranic humans. However, they will never be able to emulate my bad spelling. That should be the real test. ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #7,274 by mhuber 8/30/01 5:27:33 PM Reply	Yep, Turing specified A man pretending to be a woman. Which was the success criteria, as well. The computer had to fool people as often as the man. Alan Turing's test, the way he wrote it, is pretty hard. The variations are much easier. I had an entirely functional emulator named Katy.exe that was indistinguishable from a person suffering from catatonia. And I didn't even write it on purpose, I renamed another program that happened to work that way due to something stupid I did with a pointer. White guys in suits know best - Pat McCurdy

Welcome to IWETHEY!