Hyperbole! Not even close to the Turing test. In the TT the human knows they are testing, they can try to be confusing, to catch-out the AI. It is also not confined to a narrow set of topics, nor limited in duration. Eliza, software therapist passed this test decades ago!https://twitter.com/plinz/status/993991552828694528 …
I don’t think that the Turing test should be understood literally. We turingtest each other every day, to see what areas we are conscious of. Most people cannot even write a sonnet.
-
-
If an AI is indistinguishable, based on the test, then it qualifies. to the degree that a human qualifies. Sure, there can be other kinds of intelligence, but we have no measure for them. The only benchmark that we can use is ourselves, and that is the point of the test. 2/2
-
If you take it literally (see Turing's 1950 paper), then computer should fool the jury into thinking that it is a woman and lie about its hair. That is not so interesting. I want to know if it has capacities for understanding that are on par with our own, not if it mimics us.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
No, I think it should. Turing was a Mathematician, he was being specific when he described the test. It is an empirical evaluation of "intelligence" in the absence of any agreed definition of what "Intelligence" means, how can we tell? 1/2
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.