Computer passes Turing test

[RAMA]

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...ademics-warn-of-dangerous-future-9508370.html

I have yet to confirm this, but it seems the likeliest of claimants so far. If true, it's a ahead of schedule..

 

[Amaris]

We'll see. I'm not convinced, and will wait for a science journal to publish the methodology and results.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

This is a joke. The computer was programmed to portray itself as a 13-year-old Ukrainian boy, which would allow people to overlook its horribly broken English and lack of general knowledge.

All it did was fool some overly trusting people.

 

[RAMA]

I haven't had time to look it up to confirm it, which is why I put in the disclaimer. I'll look it up anyway when I get home.

 

[sojourner]

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...ademics-warn-of-dangerous-future-9508370.html

I have yet to confirm this, but it seems the likeliest of claimants so far. If true, it's a ahead of schedule..

Good to know you're on the case!

 

[RAMA]

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...ademics-warn-of-dangerous-future-9508370.html

I have yet to confirm this, but it seems the likeliest of claimants so far. If true, it's a ahead of schedule..

Good to know you're on the case!

I actually reported it to several science writers and scientists, as well as one sf writer, but with the same disclaimer. I am indeed on the case.

 

[Amaris]

This is a joke. The computer was programmed to portray itself as a 13-year-old Ukrainian boy, which would allow people to overlook its horribly broken English and lack of general knowledge.

All it did was fool some overly trusting people.

Yeah, when I read it was supposed to be a 13 year old Ukrainian boy, my first thought was that the Turing people must have really lowered the bar.

 

[Metryq]

A Turing test does not mean the computer (or its software) is self-aware, "alive" or "artificially intelligent." All it means is the computer on the other end of an audio/video/text interface can pass as human.

(Is a computer really singing when sampled voices, like Vocaloid, are used?)

In a similar vein, highly detailed and convincing effects of an alien invasion are not evidence that such an event really happened. Although many people listening to a radio show in 1938 were convinced.

 

[YellowSubmarine]

I've been convincing people I was an Ukrainian robot since I was 13.

 

[gturner]

For my PhD thesis I wrote a program that was indistinguishable from a person in a coma.

My first program was "10 END" but my advisor pointed out that I wasn't trying to simulate a dead person, so I changed it to "10 GOTO 10".

 

[Mudd]

According to another source, in panic they tried to pull the plug. Goostman fought back.

 

[RAMA]

So I had time to look at it a bit more. The story is legit, and technically it did pass the test..two issues about it though: They do seem to have taken a "short cut" by passing it off as a 13 year old Ukranian boy, and the second, a longtime supporter of getting Turing pardoned was part of the judging group, so he may have a bias. Still:

Professor Ken Warwick, a visiting professor at Reading, said in a press release: "Some will claim that the Test has already been passed. The words Turing Test have been applied to similar competitions around the world. However this event involved the most simultaneous comparison tests than ever before, was independently verified and, crucially, the conversations were unrestricted. A true Turing Test does not set the questions or topics prior to the conversations. We are therefore proud to declare that Alan Turing's Test was passed for the first time on Saturday."

So is this a clever "Kirk beats the no win scenario" type feat, or just a trick?

Also, the question is raised, does it matter if the computer really can't think at this point and is simply good at simulating human behavior, because at what point does it matter what the difference is? It could be argued humans do a lot of intelligent things without design.

Ultimately this is simply a milestone, one which seems impossible to avoid, where AI will eventually match and surpass us.

Kurzweil's wager:

http://www.kurzweilai.net/a-wager-on-the-turing-test-the-rules

 

[Amaris]

Yeah, but in this case gturner has a point. When you tell people what to expect, that poisons the results of the test, because then people will unwittingly give allowances to their fellow contestant (the A.I.), in order to create a more "balanced" result.

In short, it's like letting a guy win the 5 minute mile by telling everyone he gets a 4 minute handicap, at which point they agree, and are then excited to see him beat the 5 minute mile in under "5" minutes.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I haven't had time to look it up to confirm it

Then you probably shouldn't have started a thread based on it, eh?

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...ademics-warn-of-dangerous-future-9508370.html

I have yet to confirm this, but it seems the likeliest of claimants so far. If true, it's a ahead of schedule..

Good to know you're on the case!

I actually reported it to several science writers and scientists, as well as one sf writer...

Without even reading the article to see if it was legit. As usual, you got excited by the headline and didn't bother to dip into the substance of the actual article, much less take any time to stop and think if the discovery (if it even is that) means what you think it means.

 

[Mudd]

Ultimately this is simply a milestone, one which seems impossible to avoid, where AI will eventually match and surpass us. http://www.kurzweilai.net/a-wager-on-the-turing-test-the-rules

No, and no.

 

[RAMA]

I haven't had time to look it up to confirm it

Then you probably shouldn't have started a thread based on it, eh?

Good to know you're on the case!

I actually reported it to several science writers and scientists, as well as one sf writer...

Without even reading the article to see if it was legit. As usual, you got excited by the headline and didn't bother to dip into the substance of the actual article, much less take any time to stop and think if the discovery (if it even is that) means what you think it means.

No all the headlines I put up are legit. This one is quite big news so I put it up with a disclaimer. Lots of times news shows air something that isn't confirmed because they speculate on a news story and details come out later. Same thing is true here.

RAMA

 

[RAMA]

Just thought this was funny: There were quite a few stories of humans failing the (reverse)Turing test.

The first Loebner Prize competition was held on November 8, 1991, at the Boston Computer Museum. In its first few years, the contest required each program and human confederate to choose a topic, as a means of limiting the conversation. One of the confederates in 1991 was the Shakespeare expert Cynthia Clay, who was, famously, deemed a computer by three different judges after a conversation about the playwright. The consensus seemed to be: “No one knows that much about Shakespeare.” (For this reason, Clay took her misclassifications as a compliment.)

 

[RAMA]

Richard Dawkins @RichardDawkins · 24m Turing test. Do we keep pushing the bar higher? http://bit.ly/Sq8Kzm Small talk no longer enough. Now demand deep philosophical talk.

Richard Dawkins @RichardDawkins · 6m

Turing imagined talking to computer in separate room. What if talk to robot interacting w real world? I think that's where my bar is set now


Agreed

 

[Mudd]

Have any of the Mighty Thinkers of The Singularity done any scientific research - hell, done any thinking at all - about what the actual phenomenological bases for vague concepts like "survival instinct" or even "curiosity" actually might be?

 

[Silvercrest]

Ultimately this is simply a milestone, one which seems impossible to avoid, where AI will eventually match and surpass us.

No, and no.

I dunno ... seems like the Ukrainians should be concerned ...