First computer has passed the Turing test

[Raiman]

Don't know if this is new but interesting nonetheless.

http://gizmodo.com/this-is-the-first-computer-in-history-to-have-passed-th-1587780232

Are we on the way toward advanced AI and the singularity? How significant is this test?

 

[elzar]

*Turing

the computer only has to fool 30 per cent of evaluators. via text message. not sure what to make of it.

 

[Raiman]

Ow yeah Alan Turing my bad.

 

[weich]

I think this is a significant step. Obviously there is still a lot of room to go, but this is impressive all the same.

 

[flanellograf]

It depends on how they did it. If it's only about trickery, and not actual comprehension (i.e. mimicking brain functions) on the part of the computer program, then it's a lot less significant. For instance, if even partially proper comprehension existed already, then google translate would be fuck tonne better.
The computer was also supposed to act like a 13 year old, which should be significantly easier.

 

[ExquisitExamplE]

Personally speaking, I believe that ALL technologies, programs, ideas and inventions can be used for good or for ill, and that the potential of a thing being used for ill does NOT make its invention automatically negative. I also believe that the reaction from academia is inappropriate at this time. Like a no smoking sign at a gas station, this fear-mongering is only instructional to the small minority of halfwits who lack the foresight to have come to the same conclusion, that it is POSSIBLE for an artificial intelligence program to be used for nefarious purposes, and the seriousness of the implications of that possibility.

 

[Raiman]

It depends on how they did it. If it's only about trickery, and not actual comprehension (i.e. mimicking brain functions) on the part of the computer program, then it's a lot less significant. For instance, if even partially proper comprehension existed already, then google translate would be fuck tonne better.
The computer was also supposed to act like a 13 year old, which should be significantly easier.

It still mimicked a human being.

 

[AgentOrange24]

Destroy it now before it learns and evolves.

 

[flanellograf]

It still mimicked a human being.

No. It passed for a human being. That's not necessarily equivalent to mimicking human brain processes, even if we only talk about the functionality and not the actual neurons etc. Although AI has done serious strides, it's still not there. Last I checked we were able to simulate a mosquitos brain, or something like that. The computational power to mimic an actual brain, i.e. the singularity, is estimated to be achieved around 2024.

 

[krayzah1]

No. It passed for a human being. That's not necessarily equivalent to mimicking human brain processes, even if we only talk about the functionality and not the actual neurons etc. Although AI has done serious strides, it's still not there. Last I checked we were able to simulate a mosquitos brain, or something like that. The computational power to mimic an actual brain, i.e. the singularity, is estimated to be achieved around 2024.

Searle's Chinese Room.

 

[flanellograf]

Searle's Chinese Room.

Unfortunately that's a naive argument, predating the understanding of the brain we have today. There is nothing magical about the brain, it's a machine, even if it's biological.
And in fact, many separate non-conscious atomic processes do seem to add up to an emergent property which we call consciousness.
There is an interesting counter-argument, where if you substitute each neuron for a artificial circuit exactly mimicking the functionality of that neuron, in time you will get a fully functioning artificial brain. There is no reasonable reason for why that artificial brain would be a "philosophical zombie" and didn't have consciousness.

 

[JonesBones]

Unfortunately that's a naive argument, predating the understanding of the brain we have today. There is nothing magical about the brain, it's a machine, even if it's biological.
And in fact, many separate non-conscious atomic processes do seem to add up to an emergent property which we call consciousness.
There is an interesting counter-argument, where if you substitute each neuron for a artificial circuit exactly mimicking the functionality of that neuron, in time you will get a fully functioning artificial brain. There is no reasonable reason for why that artificial brain would be a "philosophical zombie" and didn't have consciousness.

It has nothing to do with that. It's the philosophical argument that one can't distinguish between somebody who can speak with you in a language, and one who truly understands it. Somebody could whisper in my ear, or tell me what to type in German for example, and it could fool a German speaker, into thinking I actually understand the language. But I don't. I am only following instructions. I could pass as a German speaker on this forum, if I hired a German to give me instructions. There would be no way to tell if I actually understand the language, or am just following a program.

 

[zackryder]

it has begun!!!

the rise of the AI

& inevitably

 

[PAUonePUNCH]

I read the title as "First computer has passed Drug test."

 

[saugeye killah]

In before "Skynet".

edit: or not. In after Skynet..

 

[Heefer Madness]

It has nothing to do with that. It's the philosophical argument that one can't distinguish between somebody who can speak with you in a language, and one who truly understands it. Somebody could whisper in my ear, or tell me what to type in German for example, and it could fool a German speaker, into thinking I actually understand the language. But I don't. I am only following instructions. I could pass as a German speaker on this forum, if I hired a German to give me instructions. There would be no way to tell if I actually understand the language, or am just following a program.

There are literally dozens of replies to Searle's argument, it's certainly not consensus between scientists and philosophers. I personally think he underestimates computational technology and overestimates the uniqueness of the human brain. We'll have to wait and see.

 

[Lead]

Unfortunately that's a naive argument, predating the understanding of the brain we have today. There is nothing magical about the brain, it's a machine, even if it's biological.
And in fact, many separate non-conscious atomic processes do seem to add up to an emergent property which we call consciousness.
There is an interesting counter-argument, where if you substitute each neuron for a artificial circuit exactly mimicking the functionality of that neuron, in time you will get a fully functioning artificial brain. There is no reasonable reason for why that artificial brain would be a "philosophical zombie" and didn't have consciousness.

Reasonable reason

 

[WorldofWarcraft]

...and so it has begun...

 

[Philippou4Life]

Statistically speaking, if it can fool 30% of people today, it'll only take around 6 years before it fools us 100% of the time.

That's when true A.I. will be born.

They talked about how a computer will never be able to be as complex as a human brain, I'm starting to believe that we are part of the self-fulfilling prophecy with our own curiosity to make it absolutely sure that there WILL be a computer that's as smart as us--I mean, why not right?

 

[WARRIOR POET]

No. It passed for a human being. That's not necessarily equivalent to mimicking human brain processes, even if we only talk about the functionality and not the actual neurons etc. Although AI has done serious strides, it's still not there. Last I checked we were able to simulate a mosquitos brain, or something like that. The computational power to mimic an actual brain, i.e. the singularity, is estimated to be achieved around 2024.

right.

the "AI" does not even know it is trying to be a person. it does not even understand what a person is. it is just something programmed by a person with certain responses and probabilities.

a glorified teddy ruxpin