Posted by
michael
on from the dreaming-the-future dept.
Anonymous Coward writes: "Ray Kurzweil and other digerati discuss when popular sci-fi concepts will manifest in the real world. See part I or
part II."
Re:"Futurists"
by
dreamquick
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I'd argue that futurists envision, the inventors read the work of the futurists which inspires them to create something similar, and then politics and money spoils the wonderful symetry of it all...
Re:The problem with the Turing test
by
evilviper
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Real Intelligence is not a matter of subjectivity, except in some fringe cases. Even the most idiotic human can be distinguished from an intelligent gorilla. That is precisely why a less subjective test is needed.
The ability to solve problems, draw conclusions, faith, all are harbingers of intelligence. There is no doubt that a machine can be designed to warehouse conversations it can recall when needed, and learn new word definitions and such when needed. We have the technology to do that now, and it certainly wouldn't be a sentient being. That is the problem with the Turing test.
Re:The problem with the Turing test
by
mrfiddlehead
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
So how's ELIZA doing?
Think about what you've said for a minute. I'll assume by the syntax of your sentence that you're young, and so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Your argument against one, of many, of the seminal ideas of someone with intellectual prowess of Alan Turing will not cut the mustard in the world of AI research, I'm afraid. Obviously? What is obvious about your hypothesis (that the Turing Test is completely subjective)? And how do you move from your hypothesis to your conclusion, ie., that the smarter of (sic) a person you are..., without any observation or analysis of results.
The biggest problem with your hypothesis, after reading your conclusion, is your lack of observation and analysis.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd argue that futurists envision, the inventors read the work of the futurists which inspires them to create something similar, and then politics and money spoils the wonderful symetry of it all...
Real Intelligence is not a matter of subjectivity, except in some fringe cases. Even the most idiotic human can be distinguished from an intelligent gorilla. That is precisely why a less subjective test is needed.
The ability to solve problems, draw conclusions, faith, all are harbingers of intelligence. There is no doubt that a machine can be designed to warehouse conversations it can recall when needed, and learn new word definitions and such when needed. We have the technology to do that now, and it certainly wouldn't be a sentient being. That is the problem with the Turing test.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Think about what you've said for a minute. I'll assume by the syntax of your sentence that you're young, and so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Your argument against one, of many, of the seminal ideas of someone with intellectual prowess of Alan Turing will not cut the mustard in the world of AI research, I'm afraid. Obviously? What is obvious about your hypothesis (that the Turing Test is completely subjective)? And how do you move from your hypothesis to your conclusion, ie., that the smarter of (sic) a person you are
The biggest problem with your hypothesis, after reading your conclusion, is your lack of observation and analysis.
The scientific method does work.
:wq