7 ms·

> therefore we should believe it is intelligent, like humans are They can believe whatever they want, that doesn't mean I have to share their beliefs. Fact of

> therefore we should believe it is intelligent, like humans are They can believe whatever they want, that doesn't mean I have to share their beliefs. Fact of the matter is: Without a definition of intelligence that doesn't involve pointing at ourselves, there is no accurate test of intelligence for something that isn't us. > this behaves indistinguishably from a human Several problems with this: a) Something that behaves like something else, isn't necessarily the same thing. Nature doesn't do duck-typing. A porpoise isn't a fish. b) Without a clear definition of "indistinguishable from human", this, again, is more a test of the discriminating factors (the interrogator) ability, than of the qualities of the thing that it is actually supposed to test. Case in point: Once upon a time, people didn't know that there is a difference between stars and planets, as both were just bright dots in the sky.

Ukv 3y ago
> They can believe whatever they want, that doesn't mean I have to share their beliefs. I don't claim you have to, and noted that whether you're willing to make such an inference depends on the views you subscribe to. > Fact of the matter is: Without a definition of intelligence that doesn't involve pointing at ourselves, there is no accurate test of intelligence for something that isn't us. Say people have varying, largely ambiguous, definitions of what it means for a webpage to be responsive. You propose measuring time from user click to the new content being presented. For some the test is entirely sufficient as it already encompasses what they mean by responsive, for others it's a partial indication but not on its own conclusive, and for some it may be a separate concern to what they mean. The test wouldn't settle the issue of definition, and generally isn't equivalent to the original question, but is still useful, relevant, and can actually be carried out. > Nature doesn't do duck-typing. A porpoise isn't a fish. I don't think nature really does any typing like this at all. "Porpoise" and "fish" are our own labels, and we may choose to define them based off of observable characteristics or behaviors. > Without a clear definition of "indistinguishable from human", this, again, is more a test of the discriminating factors (the interrogator) ability, The test can be repeated with many interrogators to help factor out the variance in individuals' ability.
- usrbinbash 3y ago
  > but is still useful, relevant The proposed test for responsiveness actually does test an aspect of responsiveness. The problem here is only in the definition of the variable to test: Yes, "responsiveness" isn't well defined. The Turing "test" however doesn't test intelligent behavior at all, so the problem is BOTH in the definition of the tested variable, AND in the actual test.
  - Ukv 3y ago
    > The problem here is only in the definition of the variable to test: Yes, "responsiveness" isn't well defined. That's all that was really required for the purpose of that analogy - arguing that there can still be useful/relevant tests without agreement on definition, as a response specifically to your "Without a definition [...]" claim. But, I do think you could equally say that the responsiveness test is actually testing speed of the computer or speed of the connection, in addition to some defining responsiveness in a way that isn't related to click-to-new-content speed.

Ukv 3y ago

> They can believe whatever they want, that doesn't mean I have to share their beliefs. I don't claim you have to, and noted that whether you're willing to make such an inference depends on the views you subscribe to. > Fact of the matter is: Without a definition of intelligence that doesn't involve pointing at ourselves, there is no accurate test of intelligence for something that isn't us. Say people have varying, largely ambiguous, definitions of what it means for a webpage to be responsive. You propose measuring time from user click to the new content being presented. For some the test is entirely sufficient as it already encompasses what they mean by responsive, for others it's a partial indication but not on its own conclusive, and for some it may be a separate concern to what they mean. The test wouldn't settle the issue of definition, and generally isn't equivalent to the original question, but is still useful, relevant, and can actually be carried out. > Nature doesn't do duck-typing. A porpoise isn't a fish. I don't think nature really does any typing like this at all. "Porpoise" and "fish" are our own labels, and we may choose to define them based off of observable characteristics or behaviors. > Without a clear definition of "indistinguishable from human", this, again, is more a test of the discriminating factors (the interrogator) ability, The test can be repeated with many interrogators to help factor out the variance in individuals' ability.

usrbinbash 3y ago
> but is still useful, relevant The proposed test for responsiveness actually does test an aspect of responsiveness. The problem here is only in the definition of the variable to test: Yes, "responsiveness" isn't well defined. The Turing "test" however doesn't test intelligent behavior at all, so the problem is BOTH in the definition of the tested variable, AND in the actual test.
- Ukv 3y ago
  > The problem here is only in the definition of the variable to test: Yes, "responsiveness" isn't well defined. That's all that was really required for the purpose of that analogy - arguing that there can still be useful/relevant tests without agreement on definition, as a response specifically to your "Without a definition [...]" claim. But, I do think you could equally say that the responsiveness test is actually testing speed of the computer or speed of the connection, in addition to some defining responsiveness in a way that isn't related to click-to-new-content speed.