Can we update the Turing test? It is about time. The Turing test, created in 1950, aims to differentiate humans from robots -- but we cannot, using that test. Bots can easily beat a human in Chess, Go, image recognition, voice calls, or, seems, any test. We can no longer use the Turing test, we are not exceptional.
The relevant aspect of "playing better chess" is that chess is a model of a conversation, a give and take. It is unsetlling that people have difficulty accepting it, it is not a good performance on a conversation. A human who finds it "normal" that computers can pass as a colleague, frequently, and not wonder about the intelligence of that colleague ... or smile? The Turing test has also become an intelligence test, and humans are using bots to beat humans, easily. This is another reason, in ethics, to depreciate this tool and look deeper.
See... Preprint Consciousness: The 5th Dimension
Dear Ed Gerck,
I suggest you to see links in subject,
-Computer AI passes Turing test in 'world first' - BBC News - BBC.com
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27762088
-Did Google's Duplex AI Demo Just Pass the Turing Test? [Update ...
https://www.extremetech.com › Computing
-What's the Turing Test and Which AI Passes It? - Knowmail
https://www.knowmail.me/blog/whats-turing-test-ai-pass/
-Moving Beyond the Turing Test with the Allen AI Science Challenge ...
https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/...turing-test...science.../fulltext
-Learn About The Turing Test: Who's a Bot? - WhoIsHostingThis
https://www.whoishostingthis.com › Resources
Best regards
This is a very interesting and also very difficult to answer question (as far as I know). The "chinese room" is an experiment to prove that the turing test is not suited to decide between humans and machines.
In principle, you could copy the function of all neurons to a software program and there would be no difference in work. Therefore I am not sure if a test itself makes sense.
Hello Thomas Fuhrmann : Yes, what we found, even using varied and diverse channels, with a correction channel as large as desired, that we could not reduce error to zero, contradicting Shannon Tenth Theorem.
We now wrote a preprint on this, linked in the discussion. We show that one cannot differentiate, that way, humans from bots.
It can't even be proved that anyone except for the subject is not a zombie or is not a part of a dream illusion. There is no strong argument against solipsism. Of course we can perform Turing tests and other tests, but in my view, hypothesizing about proofs for consciousness in other phenomena and calling that science is pointless. It is a matter of faith and belief as well as individual reason. Experiment which would give certainty is impossible here.
Thank you. I understand that it is possible to study statistically what constitutes trust according to people, and even check what are the neural correlates or hormones involved but still it won't explain what being is. Science examines the contents of being. Being itself is the subject of metaphysics i.e. some separate category. I think a good analogy in that case is the one with knife. Can the knife cut itself? It cut anything else but not itself. Therefore it is other category
We are not talking about being, but consciousness. Unless you think that consciousness implies being, and even then, we are restricting ourselves-- in order to understand it -- to one topic.
We suggest the model of a metric space, which is very general, to model consciousness, in the sense that we can then define a metric and distance, and relative (not absolute) measurement. From the relative measurements, we can reach the absolute, in the sense of invariant, as can be entertained in spacetime.
Consciousness would not be biological, but has support everywhere, even in atomic interactions, so it can emerge as a natural property, in evolution, from particle, to crystal, to animal. This would be a physical theory, not a deus ex machina, a fiat, of behavior without physical cause. There is no "Big bang" of consciousness, it would already exist, be ubiquitous.
We could also suggest other models, but we are led by the spatial and temporal dimensions to seek a continuation in their analogy, to their movement, which is a metric space, and is not restrictive of the structure, is open-ended. The natural question is which metric to use, and the only choice that allows distance to be calculated coherently in all cases, is trust in the abstract definition.
I understand the idea. But it is not that obvious that being is separate from consciousness. If there is a universe with no conscious being to experience it, can one say it really is? Which brings me to your idea that consciousness
is fundamental. I believe we arrive at the same idea. But then I doubt it has scientific implications. Nevertheless, I would find interesting to see some predictions from your theory. As you explained it, it sounds interesting.
Hello Karol: That universe would be incomunicado, and anyone who goes there ceases to be conscious -- but could still be called "being", alive, like someone who is in anesthesia, being yes but not conscious. The concept of "being" is separate from consciousness in other cases in the medical lliterature, such as REM sleep, coma, or cerebral death, with legal implications. I never said that a person awaken from coma is conscious, but that a person in coma exists (being).
You can't be sure that a person awaken form coma is conscious as you do. We all assume it is true, because it seems obvious and sane to assume. The other option is that I am the only conscious being. I can't disprove it, but I act as if others are like me. It is my choice to give meaning to life. Nevertheless there will never be certainty.
Thank you for your reply. I see your point. Just to clarify my argument, it is basically Cartesian dream/evil demon argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_doubt#The_dream_argument
The relevant aspect of "playing better chess" is that chess is a model of a conversation, a give and take. It is unsetlling that people have difficulty accepting it, it is not a good performance on a conversation. A human who finds it "normal" that computers can pass as a colleague, frequently, and not wonder about the intelligence of that colleague ... or smile? The Turing test has also become an intelligence test, and humans are using bots to beat humans, easily. This is another reason, in ethics, to depreciate this tool and look deeper. (I added this note on the discussion above, thanks for the comments)
- Badges
- Science topic