silverstream314
The entire video:
http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/the-science-studio/daniel-dennet
Source
Turing Test – Daniel Dennett
Similar Posts
Mark Anthony "Near-Death and Shared Death Experiences" on Friday, May 15, 2020 sponsored by ISGO
A Radically Empirical Approach to the Exploration of Consciousness, Alan Wallace
Drones use wi-fi for 3D mapping to ‘see’ through walls
27 thoughts on “Turing Test – Daniel Dennett”
Comments are closed.
@UrineCredible
While Hawkins talk is pretty interesting, I wouldn't go so far as to say that Turing is not a good test for intelligence. It seems to me that what he is that the behavioral approach is not the best one to actually pass the test. I would however think that should we pass the Turing test through means other than trying to copy the way we work would be pretty darn interesting.
Dennett doesn't think his interviewer's sentient due to a Turing test! He concluded the interviewer's sentient before they met, because Dennett's sentient and is human & the interviewer's human so he's probably sentient too. This logic might suck, but it IS what Dennett used–unless you think he thought during the interview 'would a sentient being respond this way…' What makes humans sentient may be replicable or not, but even Dennett can't rationally conclude this depends on a Turing test.
@drunkagnostic. You realize he offers a Turing test as a metaphor for conversation (i.e., any interlocutor who fails to meet the standards expected by the other party in the conversation fails the "Turing test".) His invocation isn't, in my opinion, meant to be taken as a literal Turing test. Although, it might as well be, that's the whole point. To my mind, what he said makes perfect sense.
Is that Dr. Ramachandran in the audience?
I never thought I'd see a reference to blade runner in a Dan Dennett lecture.
@moneyjarrod No; it's Jesse Jackson.
@ilovehd831 the Turing test can only positively confirm intelligence not deny it. Failing it doesn't mean anything, only passing counts. Just because something is intelligent doesn't necessarily make it capable of passing the Turing test. Being capable of passing the Turing test however, necessarily makes it intelligent.
Programs hoping to fool humans must rely on the programmer's cleverness to justify a non-sequitur conversation, nothing to do with AI.
The best program can't handle a simple question requiring correct use of previously provided information. For example: "Hi, I am Movielover, what do I love?"
Human: "Movies?"
Bot: "Want to tell me bout love?" or "You're asking way too many questions. Let's talk about something else"
uploaded on my bday lol cool
@ilovehd831 do you have a better idea? propose a better test and then we'll talk
An industry that grows so quickly
yet the fruit has only become shinier, smoother, more accessable
the underlieng principles are the same for the last 40 years!
new tools required!
@666arzin
Help computer?
@Serpico261 Well, I should rephrase that. I think AI begins when the program can actually learn something from the conversation. A simple macro in a pre-stored sentence, to me doesn't count as AI. Think of Watson, the computer which recently beat the Jeopardy champions. I consider that a real step forward towards AI, because Watson collects info from the questions and even from the human competitors answers to improve its chances.
@Serpico261 Well said, Deep Blue is a computation powerhouse which doesn't learn. It searches EVERY allowed move and counter-move, even the stupid ones, and will pick the one with the most chances of winning. After 3 or 4 moves, Deep blue can solve to checkmate, regardless of what the human opponent does. At that point, it's just a math problem with a solution, not a "game" anymore.
@HomuncuIus His "intuition pumps", "deflationary accounts:", "Sky Cranes/hooks" theories are something only smoked-up person in a bad trip could think of.
Gregory Chaitin work's on Godel's theorem has finally buried all this positivist dogma of Dennett, Churchland and similar. The Omega number, or Chaitin's constant isn't computable at all. It is irreducible complex algorithm, that is true just by accident. I'ts compatible with Penrose's ORCH-OR, as the platonic information (pattern) embedded at the Plank scale. The implications are mind-boggling. And still today, you have automata like Dennett talking nonsense.
@packe777 wtf? Sky hooks and cranes is a great analogy for magic and non magic explanations, and it wasn't coined by Dennett anyway.
Youtube fails the Turing Test. In the related videos list…..What does a boob-a-licious Chinese girl have to do with the Turing Test?
I recommend you to find "Closer To Truth" website and find Chaitin in the participants section. Omega is not logically deductible via Hilbert's formal system, and looking through formalistic viewpoint it looks random, but it's not, it's like an island of information that is not computable via Turing machine. It's digital Platonic information, embedded at the Plank scale, just like pure mathematical truths or James Gates's Adinkra's in String Theory as error correcting algorithms.
Says Kurzweil right? You buy it no matter what and will see no skeptical thought or anything else
Computers were invented by Charles Babbage in 1824. The Enigma Code Machine was decrypted by three Polish men in 1932 and they gave the Enigma machine and their code book to the British in 1939. The British were able to read all German military messages from 1939.
Therefore Alan Turing was a fraud, whose handler Jack Good at Bletchley Park said, "Alan's only contribution was to claim that from a contradiction, one can deduce everything." Alan couldn't decrypt anything with his theory.
google algorithms have your number
Sucks to be the least impressive human.
Look at the AI from the 1960s and today's best is hardly an improvement. Possibly because almost every one of you do not actually work on these problems, but merely sit back waiting for it. Just wait until you're 60 and the same epidemic happens again, except you're too old and it's too late. Kiss the solutions to these problems in your lifetimes goodbye, because you failed to do the work.
boom
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/computer-becomes-first-to-pass-turing-test-in-artificial-intelligence-milestone-but-academics-warn-of-dangerous-future-9508370.html
It has been noted that Philip K.Dick's Voigt-Kampff test, in 'Do Androids Dream of Elecric Sheep?'(1968), is effectively a development of the Turing test as devised in 1950.
In the remake of Battlestar Galactica (2003-8) a similar development is made but proves ineffective and some human beings get to be declared computers.
Unlike some, I still consider the test concept useful; not only when websites use it to eliminate bots, but also when using IM's like this one to eliminate both bots and woolly thinking humans alike.
http://discovermagazine.com/2009/mar/25-how-can-you-tell-if-your-im-buddy-is-really-a-machine/
The article in this link was published in 2009 and now it's 2015, so how far has AI advanced since then?
The question you should now be asking is "is this guy a bot?"
Let’s raise a simple question: and what about human who fails to pass the Turing test (like for example man with Down's syndrome, an infant, etc)? How we should call a human who fails to pass the Turing test? What word/term we should use for denoting a human who fails to pass the Turing test? If a human fails to pass Turing test then this raises a simple question: “does such human have consciousness or not?”. As we can clearly see from the above examples, the Turing test is unable to determine if the object has consciousness or not. There is not a single scientific tool which would be able to test for the existence of consciousness….. More details can be found at “Neurocluster Brain Model” site.