a better Turing test

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Advocate
Posts: 992
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

a better Turing test

Post by Advocate »

As commonly understood, the Turing test might easily produce false positives. What is needed is the same test but with a philosopher, to provide false negatives. Call it the Turing Dialectic, if you will.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 4359
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: a better Turing test

Post by Harbal »

Advocate wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2020 8:39 pm if you will.
I'll think about it. :|
Advocate
Posts: 992
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: a better Turing test

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Harbal post_id=471822 time=1600372378 user_id=9107]
[quote=Advocate post_id=471820 time=1600371585 user_id=15238]
if you will.
[/quote]

I'll think about it. :|
[/quote]

Do it if you won't?
Advocate
Posts: 992
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: a better Turing test

Post by Advocate »

If you were chosen, what would your first question be?

"I'm a philosopher, and as such i believe the meaning of life is that everyone must choose the answer to that question for themselves. What's yours?"
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 4359
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: a better Turing test

Post by Harbal »

Advocate wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2020 8:55 pm
Do it if you won't?
I will only do it if I can't.
Skepdick
Posts: 4964
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: a better Turing test

Post by Skepdick »

Advocate wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2020 8:39 pm As commonly understood, the Turing test might easily produce false positives. What is needed is the same test but with a philosopher, to provide false negatives. Call it the Turing Dialectic, if you will.
It can produce false positives AND false negatives.

Are you an AI? I expect you to answer "No".

If we live in a simulation, that's a false negative.
Last edited by Skepdick on Thu Sep 17, 2020 9:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Advocate
Posts: 992
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: a better Turing test

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Harbal post_id=471827 time=1600373143 user_id=9107]
[quote=Advocate post_id=471823 time=1600372508 user_id=15238]

Do it if you won't?
[/quote]
I will only do it if I can't.
[/quote]

Prove it!
Advocate
Posts: 992
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: a better Turing test

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Skepdick post_id=471828 time=1600373247 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=471820 time=1600371585 user_id=15238]
As commonly understood, the Turing test might easily produce false positives.
[/quote]
It can produce false positives AND false negatives.

Are you an AI? I expect you to answer "No".

If we live in a simulation, then your answer is wrong.
[/quote]

How are you at producing false maybes? or no true positives?
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 4359
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: a better Turing test

Post by Harbal »

Advocate wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2020 9:07 pm
Prove it!
What would you accept as proof?
Skepdick
Posts: 4964
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: a better Turing test

Post by Skepdick »

Advocate wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2020 9:08 pm How are you at producing false maybes? or no true positives?
How's a false maybe different to a true maybe?

A "true positive" may be a "false negative". You don't know! That's the point.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 4359
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: a better Turing test

Post by Harbal »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2020 9:15 pm
How's a false maybe different to a true maybe?
A true maybe maybe a maybe, but a false maybe has no possibility of being a maybe.
Advocate
Posts: 992
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: a better Turing test

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Harbal post_id=471831 time=1600373373 user_id=9107]
[quote=Advocate post_id=471829 time=1600373261 user_id=15238]

Prove it!
[/quote]

What would you accept as proof?
[/quote]

Words or interpretive dance.
Advocate
Posts: 992
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: a better Turing test

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Harbal post_id=471834 time=1600374190 user_id=9107]
[quote=Skepdick post_id=471833 time=1600373740 user_id=17350]

How's a false maybe different to a true maybe?
[/quote]

A true maybe maybe a maybe, but a false maybe has no possibility of being a maybe.
[/quote]

Hmm
.. perhaps.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 4359
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: a better Turing test

Post by Harbal »

Advocate wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2020 9:38 pm Hmm
.. perhaps.
That looks like a false perhaps.
Advocate
Posts: 992
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: a better Turing test

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Harbal post_id=471843 time=1600375621 user_id=9107]
[quote=Advocate post_id=471839 time=1600375137 user_id=15238]
Hmm
.. perhaps.
[/quote]

That looks like a false perhaps.
[/quote]

Is that a belief or is it knowledge? I believe it's neither, but i don't know.
Post Reply