5 ms·

> That’s an absurd and overly strict interpretation of what Turing described. No, it isn't. The turing test doesn't evaluate correctness of any answers, their

> That’s an absurd and overly strict interpretation of what Turing described. No, it isn't. The turing test doesn't evaluate correctness of any answers, their sophistication, or even if there is an answer. All it evaluates is the ability of the interrogator to distinguish between the computer and the human. And therein lies the greatest flaw of the test: It doesn't test the ability of the computer, it tests the ability of the interrogator. Quote from the wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test# In practice, the test's results can easily be dominated not by the computer's intelligence, but by the attitudes, skill, or naïveté of the questioner. Numerous experts in the field, including cognitive scientist Gary Marcus, insist that the Turing test only shows how easy it is to fool humans and is not an indication of machine intelligence. And another quote: Chatterbot programs such as ELIZA have repeatedly fooled unsuspecting people into believing that they are communicating with human beings. In these cases, the "interrogators" are not even aware of the possibility that they are interacting with computers. To successfully appear human, there is no need for the machine to have any intelligence whatsoever and only a superficial resemblance to human behaviour is required So the "silence program" may be an extreme case, but it showcases exactly this. If the computer simply says nothing, then what can the human do to determine it's a computer who is silent behind the curtain? And the answer is: Nothing. He can only guess. And since a person can just as easily be silent as a computer can, he might even mistake the human performer for a computer.

WendyTheWillow 3y ago
Yes, it's an objectively wrong interpretation of Turing's Imitation Game outlined in his paper, "Computing Machinery and Intelligence", published in Mind in 1940 [0]. It's literally on the first page: > Now suppose X is actually A, then A must answer. It is A's object in the game to try and cause C to make the wrong identification. A must answer. [0] https://redirect.cs.umbc.edu/courses/471/papers/turing.pdf https://redirect.cs.umbc.edu/courses/471/papers/turing.pdf
- usrbinbash 3y ago
  > A must answer Oh really? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289523532_Taking_the_fifth_amendment_in_Turing's_imitation_game https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289523532_Taking_th...
  - WendyTheWillow 3y ago
    Yes, really. > practical Turing tests Practical Turing tests. Edit: Here's the justification your paper uses to suggest the idea that Turing meant for the possibility of silence as a response: > In one interpretation of Turing’s test the female is expected to tell the truth, but we are not far off that time when silence was preferred to the “jabbering” of women, because “speech was the monopoly of man” and that “sounds made by birds were part of a conversation at least as intelligible and intelligent as the confusion of tongues arising at a fashionable lady’s reception”. Additionally, your cited paper there even admits this is a theoretical extension of The Imitation Game: > In its standard form, Turing’s imitation game is described as an experiment that can be practicalized in two different ways (see Figure 1) (Shah, 2011): 1) one-interrogator-one hidden interlocutor (Figure 1a), 2) one-interrogator-two hidden interlocutors (Figure 1b). > In both cases the machine must provide “satisfactory” and “sustained” answers to any questions put to it by the human interrogator (Turing, 1950: p.447). However, what about in the theoretical case when the machine takes the 5th amendment: “No person shall be held to answer”?1 Would we grant “fair play to the machines”? To repeat in case you missed it when you clearly and definitely read your own citation: "In both cases the machine must provide “satisfactory” and “sustained” answers to any questions put to it by the human interrogator (Turing, 1950: p.447)."
    - usrbinbash 3y ago
      I didn't miss anything. Your entire criticism so far hinges on my usage of silence as the answer. Alright. I'll modify the function only slightly. return "I don't want to talk about this." Replace that with a list of some different answers and `random.choice(answers)` if you like. Now you got a machine that gives "satisfactory and sustained" answers, only it always says No. Aka. the exact same situation as with complete silence, only now we dotted the i's and crossed the t's. And since the human is able to refuse to give any answers as well, it makes the entire test pointless, as again the interrogator cannot base his decision on anything but guesswork. The point of the "silence-thought-experiment" isn't to satisfy Turings paper to the letter. The point is to showcase a flaw in the methodology it presents.

WendyTheWillow 3y ago

Yes, it's an objectively wrong interpretation of Turing's Imitation Game outlined in his paper, "Computing Machinery and Intelligence", published in Mind in 1940 [0]. It's literally on the first page: > Now suppose X is actually A, then A must answer. It is A's object in the game to try and cause C to make the wrong identification. A must answer. [0] https://redirect.cs.umbc.edu/courses/471/papers/turing.pdf https://redirect.cs.umbc.edu/courses/471/papers/turing.pdf

usrbinbash 3y ago
> A must answer Oh really? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289523532_Taking_the_fifth_amendment_in_Turing's_imitation_game https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289523532_Taking_th...
- WendyTheWillow 3y ago
  Yes, really. > practical Turing tests Practical Turing tests. Edit: Here's the justification your paper uses to suggest the idea that Turing meant for the possibility of silence as a response: > In one interpretation of Turing’s test the female is expected to tell the truth, but we are not far off that time when silence was preferred to the “jabbering” of women, because “speech was the monopoly of man” and that “sounds made by birds were part of a conversation at least as intelligible and intelligent as the confusion of tongues arising at a fashionable lady’s reception”. Additionally, your cited paper there even admits this is a theoretical extension of The Imitation Game: > In its standard form, Turing’s imitation game is described as an experiment that can be practicalized in two different ways (see Figure 1) (Shah, 2011): 1) one-interrogator-one hidden interlocutor (Figure 1a), 2) one-interrogator-two hidden interlocutors (Figure 1b). > In both cases the machine must provide “satisfactory” and “sustained” answers to any questions put to it by the human interrogator (Turing, 1950: p.447). However, what about in the theoretical case when the machine takes the 5th amendment: “No person shall be held to answer”?1 Would we grant “fair play to the machines”? To repeat in case you missed it when you clearly and definitely read your own citation: "In both cases the machine must provide “satisfactory” and “sustained” answers to any questions put to it by the human interrogator (Turing, 1950: p.447)."
  - usrbinbash 3y ago
    I didn't miss anything. Your entire criticism so far hinges on my usage of silence as the answer. Alright. I'll modify the function only slightly. return "I don't want to talk about this." Replace that with a list of some different answers and `random.choice(answers)` if you like. Now you got a machine that gives "satisfactory and sustained" answers, only it always says No. Aka. the exact same situation as with complete silence, only now we dotted the i's and crossed the t's. And since the human is able to refuse to give any answers as well, it makes the entire test pointless, as again the interrogator cannot base his decision on anything but guesswork. The point of the "silence-thought-experiment" isn't to satisfy Turings paper to the letter. The point is to showcase a flaw in the methodology it presents.