Topic: Turing Test (Read 10601 times)

ivan · « **Reply #25 on:** March 20, 2007, 03:42:00 PM »

Well, I think it worked.

Rico · « **Reply #26 on:** March 20, 2007, 03:47:39 PM »

Crap, some one got to it before me. I wanted to quote Searle's Chinese Room example.

Actually, several folks in this forum are highly respected members of their profession and I'm certain more than a couple have been published in professional literature. Miss, you made three major mistakes in your post:

First, you assumed that extensive knowledge in any area ensures that you are respected and concidered an important person in your field, or that said knowledge would absolutely make them a viable source of information. (don't worry, reporters invented this idiotic idea)

Second, you assumed that if a person were located who WAS an expert in your specifically requested fields that he would have the time and the desire to talk to you about something you are hardly qualified to discourse on. To which you add the insult to a valued member of the community, which would further lessen the chance that anyone would have a serrious discussion with you.

Thirdly, the fact that you didn't know who John Searle is proves that you did no research on the subject at all. Concidering that the two main arguements against the ridiculous Turing Test are attributed to John Searle and Ned Block, not knowing that is a critical gap in your knowledge. What's more and refering to number two, why would anyone of your desired status want to say anything to some one too lazy to prepare for the discussion.

Don't take the above as an insult, because it's not entirely intended that way. A good number of the folks replying and reading these forums are extremely intelligent and highly respected individuals. To discuss anything with people who spend their days in idle conversation with your intellectual superiors, you need to make sure you "bring it," as they say. Don't show up with a half-assed thesis and expect a community of sharp-witted and industrious individuals to make time for you. You know, "birds of a feather, flock together?" You might concider a little pruning.

dcrog · « **Reply #27 on:** March 20, 2007, 04:10:09 PM »

Quote from: Rico on March 20, 2007, 03:47:39 PM

A good number of the folks replying and reading these forums are extremely intelligent and highly respected individuals.

I was going to say something in here until Rico excluded me.

ivan · « **Reply #28 on:** March 20, 2007, 04:15:52 PM »

Quote from: dcrog on March 20, 2007, 04:10:09 PM

I was going to say something in here until Rico excluded me.

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #29 on:** March 20, 2007, 04:34:36 PM »

Damn sorry I missed this one (Maxwell's demon locked me inside the Chinese Room with Schrodinger's cat).

Chris · « **Reply #30 on:** March 20, 2007, 09:08:07 PM »

Quote from: undercovernerd on March 20, 2007, 02:52:27 PM

It's for my comm, tech, and culture class. I did, however, get to choose my own topic and this is the thesis I would like to argue:

Although the Turing Test has been used to assess a machine’s capability to perform human-like conversation, it is not a relevant method for proving artificial intelligence.

I wanted to show both sides of the argument so my paper isn't too biased, but I can't find anyone who supports Turing's ideas.

Just a quick tip:

You may want to add to your thesis. For example, something like, "Although the Turing Test has been used to assess a machine’s capability to perform human-like conversation, it is not a relevant method for proving artificial intelligence because of this, because of that, and because of the other thing."

Doing so lets your readers know what to expect from your paper. A solid thesis leads the way to a solid paper.

By the way, I don't think we're even close to having computers that act as though they are humans. Computers need input (coding, as well as end user input values) to operate, and the fact that they lack the true ability to make a decision on their free will separate us from them for a very, very long time. Computers work on antecedent causes, and we can accurately predict what they will do next once we discover the algorithm they are using to operate. We cannot say the same for humans. Well, at least most of us say that we can't. Determinists like to say that everything we do in life is caused by something that happened previously.

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #31 on:** March 20, 2007, 09:16:44 PM »

I've always been critical of the 'computers require input and only know what we tell them' argument. I could convince a two year old that the sky is green and the grass is blue, they require input just as much as your standard Johnny-Five computer does.

Though for the record I predict that the only machine that could potentially (let's say one or so hundred years minimum ETA) become human-like in most respects is the neural net, and that's not really a computer at all, more of an electronic (or simulated) brain. Hans Moravec has written some interesting stuff about that, also Rodney Brooks as I recall.

Anyanka_was_framed · « **Reply #32 on:** March 20, 2007, 09:20:34 PM »

Cylons anyone?

12AX7 · « **Reply #33 on:** March 20, 2007, 10:00:19 PM »

Quote from: Anyanka_was_framed on March 20, 2007, 09:20:34 PM

Cylons anyone?

By your Command...

pbsaurus · « **Reply #34 on:** March 21, 2007, 11:52:18 AM »

Current neuroscience is showing some evidence for determinism; The Economist from about a month or two ago had a special report on it. Free Will could just be an illusion.

Chris · « **Reply #35 on:** March 21, 2007, 12:04:31 PM »

If we find that to be the case, then we'll have to re-think the way our legislative system is set up. You know, since "The dog made me do it" might actually be a viable defense for killing your son or daughter.

ivan · « **Reply #36 on:** March 21, 2007, 12:24:42 PM »

This one time I reasoned myself into a deterministic corner, because of course it makes sense, mechanically, that at any given point the state of every bit of matter and energy, including the subatomic workings within our very neurons, determines their state in the following moment. And since humans tend to recoil at the notion of a deterministic universe, I feverishly clawed my way out again by extending causality into the fourth dimension.

Maybe I'll talk about it again some time, but right now I have to do some computer programming.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #37 on:** March 21, 2007, 05:09:42 PM »

Quote from: pbsaurus on March 21, 2007, 11:52:18 AM

Current neuroscience is showing some evidence for determinism; The Economist from about a month or two ago had a special report on it. Free Will could just be an illusion.

That's just what you want us to think.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #38 on:** March 21, 2007, 05:14:27 PM »

~~Exactly~~...um I mean The Economist is a most reputable source

ivan · « **Reply #39 on:** March 21, 2007, 05:37:20 PM »

You were bound to say that.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #40 on:** March 21, 2007, 05:38:54 PM »

I don't know where I'm bound
I don't know where I'm bound
Whistles calling me away
leaving at the break of day and
I don't know where I'm bound

Can't stand locks, bars or doors
mean cops insanity and wars
Gotta find a place of peace
Till then much travellin' on seas
but I don't know where I'm bound

There's gotta be a place for me
under some green growing tree
clear cool water running by
an unfettered view of the sky
but I don't know where I'm bound

When I die don't bury me
cause then I must be free
cremate my body with a grin
throw my ashes to the wind
cause I don't know where I'm bound

I don't know where I'm bound
I don't know where I'm bound
Whistles calling me away
leaving at the break of day and
I don't know where I'm bound

Got myself a little gall
she has been a damn right pall
that ol' highway's calling me
and free I gotta be but
I don't know where I'm bound

ivan · « **Reply #41 on:** March 21, 2007, 05:50:30 PM »

You know, Pb, I can sort of see a beauty in determinism. I mean, just think: Every single solitary event in the entire universe had to happen exactly the way it did just so you and I could post stuff in this thread. That's frikken heavy. I can just imagine the combined matter of the Universe from the Big Bang on gawking at us, yelling "we did all that so you would do THIS?!?"

Dude.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #42 on:** March 21, 2007, 05:52:17 PM »

Somehow, I felt you'd post something like that.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #43 on:** March 21, 2007, 05:54:37 PM »

It's aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalllllllll going according to plan.

ivan · « **Reply #44 on:** March 21, 2007, 05:57:00 PM »

Including the fact that it's all going according to plan.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #45 on:** March 21, 2007, 05:58:35 PM »

I love it when a plan comes together.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #46 on:** March 21, 2007, 07:16:11 PM »

Quote from: ivan on March 21, 2007, 05:57:00 PM

Including the fact that it's all going according to plan.

In accordance with the prophesy.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #47 on:** March 21, 2007, 07:31:51 PM »

Which prophesy? The one from the book of SpurtReynolds or the one from the book of Detrimus?

Demosthenes · « **Reply #48 on:** March 21, 2007, 07:35:23 PM »

Quote from: pbsaurus on March 21, 2007, 07:31:51 PM

Which prophesy? The one from the book of SpurtReynolds or the one from the book of Detrimus?

The one from the book of Demosthenes.

That's right.

That prophesy.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #49 on:** March 21, 2007, 07:38:21 PM »

Ooooohhhhhh

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: Turing Test (Read 10601 times)

12AX7