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.