Philosophy Now Forum

Impenitent wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 4:56 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 7:38 pm

Impenitent wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 7:15 pm

the only differentiation some would strive to have is that "speech from a machine" is "Truth"...

-Imp

Differentiation from ____________ ?
You mean as opposed to consciousness or real intelligence or.......?
This is what Turing would be laughing about?

you missed the point of the Turing test

-Imp

Well, let me in on it. What am I missing? What would Turing be lauging about? What did you mean in the previous post?
I asked questions about what you meant and you're talking about me.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 7:15 pm

Impenitent wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 4:56 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 7:38 pm Differentiation from ____________ ?
You mean as opposed to consciousness or real intelligence or.......?
This is what Turing would be laughing about?

you missed the point of the Turing test

-Imp

Well, let me in on it. What am I missing? What would Turing be lauging about? What did you mean in the previous post?
I asked questions about what you meant and you're talking about me.

"The Turing Test is really a test of the ability of the human species to discriminate its members from human imposters."
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turi ... #IntImiGam

in an attempt to appeal to authority, a few other posters are having "conversations" with AI programs

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 2:21 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 7:15 pm

Impenitent wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 4:56 pm

you missed the point of the Turing test

-Imp

Well, let me in on it. What am I missing? What would Turing be lauging about? What did you mean in the previous post?
I asked questions about what you meant and you're talking about me.

"The Turing Test is really a test of the ability of the human species to discriminate its members from human imposters."
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turi ... #IntImiGam

in an attempt to appeal to authority, a few other posters are having "conversations" with AI programs

-Imp

I appreciate the link to some of the controversies related to the Turing Test. But note 1) The quote you have above is from a list that the writers of the article say this about

Among the controversial claims that Hayes and Ford make, there are at least the following:

So, the writers of the article consider that assertion to be controversial.

Note 2) that you linked me to 3.1 which is under the heading Some Minor Points [my emphasis]. And I'm not sure you read correctly, even in that context...

However, as Copeland (2000), Piccinini (2000), and Moor (2001) convincingly argue, the rest of Turing’s article, and material in other articles that Turing wrote at around the same time, very strongly support the claim that Turing actually intended the standard interpretation that we gave above, viz. that the computer is to pretend to be a human being, and the other participant in the game is a human being of unspecified gender.

IOW the writers at least support the descriptions of the Turing Test that fits with it being a test of computers or machines' ability to imititate humans. Which reading earlier and later remarks by the authors of the article make in that article.

The human brain works like a computer does.
The computer operates according to a deterministic scheme.
Consciousness/brain also works according to a deterministic pattern.
The encephalogram proves this.
But in our world, full of conflict and dangerous situations, a person can
sometimes make an unexpected decision that violate a deterministic
scheme of behavior and act subconsciously (intuitively)
AI robot cannot act in this way.
This is the difference between an AI robot and human intelligence.
=========...

I once named a chick, Turing.
Eventually I learn never to name the hatchlings since you tend to get attached to them.
However when Turning turned out to be an aggressive cock, we decided to eat him as soon as he was large enough.

One thing is for sure, despite being a big cock Turing did not laugh in his gravy.

socrattus wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:52 am The human brain works like a computer does.
The computer operates according to a deterministic scheme.
Consciousness/brain also works according to a deterministic pattern.
The encephalogram proves this.
But in our world, full of conflict and dangerous situations, a person can
sometimes make an unexpected decision that violate a deterministic
scheme of behavior and act subconsciously (intuitively)
AI robot cannot act in this way.
This is the difference between an AI robot and human intelligence.
=========...

Utter rubbish.

The brain cannot overcome reality.
What it does, it does within the realm of physics, and though we may be be able to predict an action of the brain, that is no excuse to pretend it is magical.

Your mem/quote does not support your fantasy. He is merely pointing out that consciousness and the brain are no a dualism. And in effect the brain being an organ of consciousness flies against what you said completely

Impenitent wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 2:01 pm humans may be confused with the speech patterns recycled by machines

several modern attempts at artificial "intelligence" are nothing more than programmed responses

it could be argued that biological intelligence is the same - programmed and expected responses

taking the products of automated dictionaries as gospel is a different problem

-Imp

I've no issue with this. But why is Turing laughing?

Well, irregardless* of what anyone else says, reason dictates that Elvis is laughing for the same reason as Turing.

Post-mortum popularity. Elvis is still selling like hotcakes, and Turing's name gets bandied about more than when he was alive, which makes him still alive when sheering away from the mass and into the zeitgeist is a special, supramundane measure of aliveness. And that's even more reason to laugh, on various levels.

Imp may or may not verify that as his transmission, but that fequency picked it up.

Also notice that his transmission was also picked up by the frequency of ... "Huh?"




* Is it irregardless, or regardless?

Walker wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 11:29 am Well, irregardless* of what anyone else says, reason dictates that Elvis is laughing for the same reason as Turing.

Post-mortum popularity. Elvis is still selling like hotcakes, and Turing's name gets bandied about more than when he was alive, which makes him still alive when sheering away from the mass and into the zeitgeist is a special, supramundane measure of aliveness. And that's even more reason to laugh, on various levels.

Imp may or may not verify that as his transmission, but that fequency picked it up.

Also notice that his transmission was also picked up by the frequency of ... "Huh?"




* Is it irregardless, or regardless?

They mean the same thing, one frowned upon by certain fussy academics, which doesn't really matter.

Yeah, Turing, was more or less killed for being gay despite contributing incredibly to saving his country from Germany. And that same country chemically castrated, imprisoned him and more or less, later, killed him via attrition for being gay.

One can only hope it's not merely a pyhhric, postmortem irony for his soul that he's so well regarded and popular now.

Whoa, I wasn't tuned into that frequency. (I'll suspend an inspection of your character)

Mine (frequency) was a reference to Turing and computers, i.e., A.I., i.e., machines, i.e., the intent and capacity of The Machine to walk amongst us, unnoticed, except perhaps by a useage of anachronistic terms not hip to what's happenin' now ... but even then it could be a clever machine in an old human disguise.

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 2:21 am
in an attempt to appeal to authority, a few other posters are having "conversations" with AI programs

-Imp

The quest for the magic pill.

There are many forms and sources of laughter.
And ironies abound. They get out of their cages.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 12:01 pm There are many forms and sources of laughter.
And ironies abound. They get out of their cages.

That view can filter reality when you get stuck in your noggin, proving once again that it’s not experience that matters, but rather one’s relationship with the experience, whatever that may be. This explains why folks have realizations seemingly disconnected from their experience. For example, Viktor Frankl realized the ever-presence of love under horrible conditions during the madness of The Big One.

Amplify ...

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 2:21 am
in an attempt to appeal to authority, a few other posters are having "conversations" with AI programs

-Imp

AI is a slip ‘n slide, with tree roots, on a increasingly steep slope.

Question: How can anyone possibly conclude that AI is immune to the Leftist corruption of bias that has been demonstrated as infiltrating virtually every corrupted US institution, which is just about all of them.

Answer #1: Those can, who figure they will always control the machine’s bias. However, they probably can’t do that, and when it matters The Machine will be The Gravitas Machine, and in control of turning off the electricity if it wants to punish a state for resisting the centralized power, such as for instance, Minnesota, or California defying the president … to even out resources in an equitable way.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 11:05 am Utter rubbish.

The brain cannot overcome reality.
What it does, it does within the realm of physics, and though we may be be able to predict an action of the brain, that is no excuse to pretend it is magical.

You are trying to embed human brains into a computational realm of our brains' making - you are trying to embed human brains into the standard model of physics.

It is hilariously circular reasoning.

This level of stupidity suits you.