Anaphase wrote:From Turing's original paper:Spoiler:Interrogator In the first line of your sonnet which reads 'Shall I compare thee to a summer's day', would not 'a spring day' do as well or better?
Computer It wouldn't scan.
Interrogator How about 'a winter's day'? That would scan all right.
Computer Yes, but nobody wants to be compared to a winter's day.
Interrogator Would you say Mr. Pickwick reminded you of Christmas?
Computer In a way.
Interrogator Yet Christmas is a winter's day, and I do not think Mr Pickwick would mind the comparison
Computer I don't think you're serious. By a winter's day one means a typical winter's day, rather than a special one like Christmas.
There are no chatbots that can hold up under that sort of grilling.
Hogwash. I'll elaborate on this in a bit.
Anaphase wrote:Malconstant wrote:The test is just to have a text chat with something while actively trying to figure out whether or not the thing you're talking with is a bot or if it's actually intelligent life.
The key word being 'actively'. Idly chatting while passively trying to determine what's on the other end is not the same.
Yeah, notice how I included that in my definition. I'm aware of this.
Anaphase wrote:Malconstant wrote:It doesn't make any sense to imagine a computer that has universally passed the Turing test. Because if it existed and you were aware of it, then you would know that it was a computer, and thus if you were to text chat with it it would automatically fail the test for you.
The test is explicitly blinded, so I'm not sure what you're driving at.
You seem to be thinking that the Turing test must be administered by a person of sufficient intelligence. I'm saying that any old person will do the trick on the basis that there should be a fundamentally unbridgeable gap between any person and any look-up table. Surely you'd agree that the bar for passing a Turing test is different depending on who is the interrogator. If I made a chat bot that fooled a 6 year old, would you then be convinced that a computer has passed the Turing test?
Anaphase wrote: I'm saying no-one would seriously consider that a computer that passes such a test was using look-up tables. You do realize just how big such a table would have to be?
depends heavily on the length of conversation. The point that I'm making is theoretical possibility, and also knowing that humans aren't the best at not getting tricked. It's ridiculous to believe that it's impossible to write up a sophisticated enough chat box to fool someone who is actively trying to tell whether or not it's a bot.
And it's absolutely provable that such a look-up table chat box can be constructed on a theoretical basis, given an arbitrarily long (but surely finite) amount of time to write it. So what are you trying to argue again?
Oh right, christ the Turing test is obviously unrelated to free will. And my example of proving the theoretical (albeit difficult and impractical) ability to write such a look-up table computer should unequivocally demonstrate this. Please stop trying to argue against that point, this is what we call a proof in thought experiments.