06-19-2014, 09:41 PM
I don't see anything wrong with it pretending to be a non english person.[/quote]
This is a case of youth and second language rather than english per se. If it could hold it's own in Ukranian conversation that would be more significant. Again I'm not sure that it is cheating to even use the second language excuse, if the goal is to mimic a human, then it shouldn't matter what the human is like. Blind, deaf, dumb, boy, girl, foreign whatever. If anything that is a poorly defined test.
If it was attempting to mimic an average person then the AI should speak Mandarian. Why should it even speak English? I'm sure there are intellegent Mandarian monoglots.
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.
Or it may be that it is just a handy byword for sophont AI.
(06-19-2014, 04:25 AM)Rynn Wrote: 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 is a case of youth and second language rather than english per se. If it could hold it's own in Ukranian conversation that would be more significant. Again I'm not sure that it is cheating to even use the second language excuse, if the goal is to mimic a human, then it shouldn't matter what the human is like. Blind, deaf, dumb, boy, girl, foreign whatever. If anything that is a poorly defined test.
(06-19-2014, 04:25 AM)Rynn Wrote: 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.Agree self-selected judges is the biggest invalidator. It is always possible a randomly selected judge could be Ukranian. If the judges are self selected then a Ukranian speaking Judge can be avoided.
If it was attempting to mimic an average person then the AI should speak Mandarian. Why should it even speak English? I'm sure there are intellegent Mandarian monoglots.
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.
(06-19-2014, 04:25 AM)Rynn Wrote: 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.replace chat bot with computer and I agree. Yes the current turing test does not show true machine intellegence, however it has changed since the original so by Y11K it may have changed yet again to be a far better metric for determining sopohonce.
Or it may be that it is just a handy byword for sophont AI.