The famous Turing's test is: under double-blinded condition, to test AI, artificial intelligence, whether mankind or AI by judges of human beings, if more than 30% of judges of human beings determine the AI is no difference with mankind, then AI is successful. Do we human beings want an AI tool all on analogy of mankind? Isn't an AI tool all on analogy of mankind will be a "new creature", and is not glad to be a tool to human beings? Such achievement is beneficial or harmful to human beings?
One can argue that the Turing test is just a creation of the human mind, and is just ONE way of determining an AI's intelligence. Human intelligence can not only be judged by a Turing test, hence for an AI to be completely human other tests need to be done or created. Ultimately, I think its a subjective opinion on whether passing the Turing test really creates an analogy of a human.
Given the subjective opinion, it could be both beneficial or harmful for humans.
I think many humans would fail a Turing Test. Testers may look at the output and wrongly conclude that only a machine could be that vacuous.
In intelligence, matured AI must be utmost than human beings, and in emotion, human beings never allow AI to emotionalize to avoid AI become a new creature so powerful that can not be controlled by human beings.
The submitter's question "Do we human beings want an AI tool all on analogy of mankind?" takes the form of a commercial question like "What is the demand for automobiles (under various conditions)?" Such questions, one may propose, are answered by the market, not by abstract discussion. Nor does the later appended proposal, to inhibit emotions to AI, answer this question. What testable prediction can be made from supposing that "matured AI is not utmost?" This test too can be viewed as subject to the determination of markets.
I'd like to translate your question into an analogy in physics, which said that "Be gravitation, or be acceleration? Is Principle of Equal Effects rational?" The answer is "yes". Not because of hindsight, but due to these two concepts reveal the true exisistence of objects. Thus, what you really cared about is that does an artificial intelligent exisistence that passed Turing's test reveal the true meaning of the AI? The answer is quite complicated, which depends on how you understand the AI. So, if you thought AI is not the simulation of human's natural intellengence, Turing's test may be irrational or special, and vice versa. Actually, even though AI is indeed the analogy of natural intellence, the Turing's test is a little more strict. Since we have no idea about what the human intellence truely is, not mention to simulate it.
Additionally, I disagree the statement of AI is a new kind of creature. Similarly, making out whether AI is a kind of creature needs you to clear what creatures mean. That'll be discussed more deeply. In my opinion, AI may be a special form of intelligent existence that beyonds our imagination now, as well as Turing.
P.S.: Here's a not bad opinion posted by one of my favorite YouTubers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEsZDrV-Me4
https://www.bilibili.com/video/av46784531
Attended the "Engineering the Future" session last month by panelists of AI professor, tech and legal representatives. There are many benefits as well as threats to human beings by AI. Now AI-created art work has come to reality, which bare eyes can't tell if it's from human or AI artists. What will be the next boundary?
One part of the audience were excited with the opportunities offered by AI, whilst the other part felt unsure and worried about it.
About questions about creature, it has become real.
Creature can include imaginary creature, see
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/creature. There are more and more examples of AI, for example, AI news presenter, AI journalist, virtual assistance, etc.
The (near) future of humans has already been foreseen in many movies.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science and Engineering
- Artificial Intelligence