Turing Test Passed

[Cerveny]

Yesterday, at the University of Reading in London, a computer convinced human judges that it was actually a 13-year-old Ukrainian boy. By convincing one-third of the judging panel of its humanity, it became the first computer ever to pass the famous Turing Test.

Will computers one day replace forum participants on PhilosophyNow?
Joking aside, what would it matter to you if you were talking to a live human or a computer if you could not tell the difference?

There is one major difference. Man as living creature more or less subliminally communicates with the rest of the nature. All the nature communicates together. You only need to "tune in" at the appropriate broadcasting. The same as a connecting of a PC into Internet... Clarifying of such communication mechanism, or even of the reason of communication would shift physics significantly further than bewildered theory of relativity :(
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=9654&start=21

[Impenitent]

ask Eldras

-Imp

Was that the one who claimed he'd invited AI but just wasn't going to do it due to moral restraint? Or was he the loon who claimed he was an AI?

For the life of me I can't remember which forum I ran into him on?

he was on Kill Devil Hill...

-Imp

[Wyman]

The majority of posters always say that they insist on talking to real people, and that such questions as yours are silly futuristic fantasies etc. You implied as much above, by labeling your own question as a joke.

And I had just come up with a great one - we should hook Kutzevena(?) up with that 13 year old Ukranian boy.

Seriously, I agree with you though, one hundred percent. I just started going on forums and interacting on the internet recently. It was very awkward at first for me until I got used to it - especially dealing with the hotheads who occasionally lash out. I actually find that responding to unseen users on forums like these, I focus my thoughts and often change either my opinions or perspective. I can easily imagine, as you do, a time when people interact with computers, just like people play chess or video games against computers.

[Sappho de Miranda]

Sappho de Miranda wrote:

Essentially I would be disappointed by the 'missing exchange of 'experience'. Also the child's lack of knowledge would prove frustrating as I am not inclined towards the role of mentor or teacher.

Ginkgo wrote:

I think Sappho de Miranda is drawing a distinction between "knowledge" and "experience" A computer can have the knowledge, but it can't have the experience. A computer can ACT like it has experience, but it will only ever be an act, it can never actually have human experiences.

P.S. I would also think that a 13 year old would have limited experiences compared to an adult. This could explain why some judges were fooled, but that's just a guess on my part.

Yes, a computer can offer up facts and related experiences of the world.
What is missing is the first-hand view and felt experiences of a 13yr old boy living in the Ukraine.
It is this authentic experience or 'knowledge' of 'what it is like', that I would find interesting.

Yes, people can create an image, another ID and pretend; it happens all the time - people are fooled.
So what?

If there is some kind of a philo exchange which prompts a new understanding, then isn't this good enough ? Input - Output.

So we all agree that qualia is significant to the issues, but how? A function of empathy perhaps, in that we feel more understanding if we feel that the engagement in communication is founded on common qualia. If we know that they know 'what it feels like' for them, then we can assume a mutual understanding. In the case of AI awareness, we don't even know what AI awareness 'feels like', and since the Turing Test is about imitating Human Awareness, we can't know if the AI is 'authentically' aware as an AI imitating humans, or, since it has been encouraged to imitate human behavior during its emergent stage, if it can only feel as human as the programming will allow? Then again, is it even comparable to human awareness since it is limited by its programming. And how can we tell, without qualia, that the AI is aware in the first place?

On some level this has more to do with human awareness than it does with AI awareness or at least, a deeper understanding of how awareness emerges.

[Kuznetzova]

1. The man that leaked this story to the press is a known media troll.
2. This story is all over major media outlets, unfortunately.
3. There is no "supercomputer". That was a factual falsehood.
4. There is no university doing this. No teams of researchers. This was a scripted bot written by a single Russian man from his own home.
5. This particular Ai experiment was not even technically the Turing Test at all. It was some other thing called the Loebner Prize; some sort of geeky get-together involving chat bot competitions.
6. The Loebner prize has rules meant to make the whole competition a more enjoyable experience.
7. One of these rules is the conversations cannot go longer than 5 minutes. For textual chat, this is an eyeblink. The testers of the bots are cut off right at the moment where things would get interesting.
8. If you were allowed to talk to the bot for 40 minutes, you would have no doubt you are talking to a machine.
9. Eugene Goostman was the name of the bot. Eugene Goostman failed to answer the question about whether a shoebox is smaller than Mt. Everest. It did what these Loebner Prize chat bots are programmed to do. To divert and distract the conversation away from the topic.
10. Eugene Goostman failed to identify that the person was asking him how many legs a millipede has. EG bot returned a catch-all, programmed answer of "Oh, I don't know, 3, maybe 4?" All the EG bot did was identify the substring phrase "how many" and shoot back a canned response. It had no clue what the question meant.
11. Given the above. Decide for yourself whether this is even related to research into intelligence at all. Decide for yourself if this counts as a "historical milestone". -- or if this is even newsworthy in the first place.

[Arising_uk]

he was on Kill Devil Hill...

-Imp

No idea?

Think I ran into him a long-time back on the Kurzweil site, although could have one of the other Rapture of the Nerds sites.

[Blaggard]

Yeah nice summation Kuznetzova, but I think we all figured out before hand he was full of shit. No offence.

[Impenitent]

he was on Kill Devil Hill...

-Imp

No idea?

Think I ran into him a long-time back on the Kurzweil site, although could have one of the other Rapture of the Nerds sites.

there was a philosophy chat site about 15 years ago called KillDevilHill... Eldras was on it and if I remember correctly, he claimed he was an AI ...

-Imp

[Arising_uk]

there was a philosophy chat site about 15 years ago called KillDevilHill... Eldras was on it and if I remember correctly, he claimed he was an AI ...

-Imp

Ah! One and the same then as I met him elsewhere, although for some reason he stopped talking to me, machines, go figure.

[HexHammer]

Will computers one day replace forum participants on PhilosophyNow?

Joking aside, what would it matter to you if you were talking to a live human or a computer if you could not tell the difference?

In most cases it wouldn't matter a thing, only good PR. Statistically some would still remaining discriminating computers.