6 ms·

> “Must answer” means the person under question must provide an answer to the question being asked. Yes, but it doesn't say what the answer has to be, it doesn

> “Must answer” means the person under question must provide an answer to the question being asked. Yes, but it doesn't say what the answer has to be, it doesn't say it has to be correct, it doesn't say it has to have to do with the question. > As I already said, your own citation proposes non-response And I have shown to you why that doesn't matter in the slightest, because a very trivial modification to the methodology could achieve the exact same thing while following the original papers requirements to the letter. > It’s a weak thought experiment Wrong. It's a perfect demonstration of one of the many reasons why AI research is all but ignoring the Turing Test; the fact that the test is more about the interrogator than it is about the machine. > “bad faith engagement.” I don't agree with your statements, and have presented arguments why, that's not argueing in bad faith.

WendyTheWillow 3y ago
Your bad faith comes from how you disagreed with my statements; you did not do the necessary due diligence to demonstrate I should continue putting forward additional effort in both understanding your point and respecting your ideas. For example, you reply "Wrong." to a subjective evaluation I've made. It literally cannot be wrong (though you can disagree), yet you declare it so with confidence! That's bad faith, and it means I will not engage further.
- usrbinbash 3y ago
  > you did not do the necessary due diligence to demonstrate I did all the necessary due dilligence. I was perfectly aware that the paper used a variation on the imitation game. I also read Turings paper long before this discussion started (I think I was in highschool when I first stumbled upon it). That's how I knew that it is easy to come up with basically the same thought experiment, without even changing any of the games rules. > For example, you reply "Wrong." to a subjective evaluation I've made. Because in my subjective evaluation it isn't a weak thought experiment, so I am fully within my rights to disagree with your evaluation.

WendyTheWillow 3y ago

Your bad faith comes from how you disagreed with my statements; you did not do the necessary due diligence to demonstrate I should continue putting forward additional effort in both understanding your point and respecting your ideas. For example, you reply "Wrong." to a subjective evaluation I've made. It literally cannot be wrong (though you can disagree), yet you declare it so with confidence! That's bad faith, and it means I will not engage further.

usrbinbash 3y ago
> you did not do the necessary due diligence to demonstrate I did all the necessary due dilligence. I was perfectly aware that the paper used a variation on the imitation game. I also read Turings paper long before this discussion started (I think I was in highschool when I first stumbled upon it). That's how I knew that it is easy to come up with basically the same thought experiment, without even changing any of the games rules. > For example, you reply "Wrong." to a subjective evaluation I've made. Because in my subjective evaluation it isn't a weak thought experiment, so I am fully within my rights to disagree with your evaluation.