06-19-2014, 04:25 AM
(06-19-2014, 02:48 AM)kch49er Wrote: Yes the orginal test in turing paper had the computer and a male attempting to impersonate a human female, so imitating a 13 year old boy (even 100%) isn't passing the orginal, how much of a stickler do you want to be?
I don't see anything wrong with it impersonanting a non english person.
It's a very important distinction. Not only did the researchers tell judges that the conversation would be with a 13 year old boy but a 13 year old boy from Ukraine. This means that the judges are far more likely to ignore strange sentences or misunderstandings as they must take into consideration language barriers and age.
This in combination with the self-selected judges means that the claim is entirely invalid. A proper test would have a large pool of randomly selected and diverse judges and software that attempts to mimic an average person with no qualifiers.
(06-19-2014, 02:48 AM)kch49er Wrote: In OA we have turinggrade computers if anything this serves as a good example of how turing grade is not equal to can pass turing test. In OA there are most likley non sopohont ais that can pass the turing test and sophont ais that can not pass the turing test. I'm sure they have more sophistacted methods for determining intellegence.
Turing grade as used in OA is synonymous with sentient which is not what the Turing test can actually show. All it can show is the sophistication of a chat bot which has good utility should it ever be realised but is not the same at all as an artificial general intelligence. In OA there would be far better metrics for determining sophonce yes.