Slashdot Mirror


Everything you Want to Know About the Turing Test

An anonymous reader writes "Everything you want to know about the Turing test provided by Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It is their latest entry."

2 of 235 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Why? by curtisk · · Score: 3, Informative
    hahaha, the only way that could have been more funny is if you had an Eliza /. account...just to complete the gag!

    Along the same lines, the bots in the recent Chatter box challenge show some improvements in the whole chatbot world, but some are just like the ol' Eliza

    --

    Sehr geehrter Toilettenbenutzer!

  2. Re:Why? by Wandering+Idiot · · Score: 3, Informative
    They say we only use 2% of our mental capacity, so what if we could build a machine that was better then ourselves?
    Perhaps "they" and you only use 2 percent (it must be shrinking! The *usual* wrong-assed estimate is 10%), but the rest of us use all of our brains, just like any remotely reasonable organism. Now, if you had said that, on average, only 10% of our neurons are firing at any *one time*, it might have been a bit less ludicous. But such would probably be true of any complex cognitive system, including advanced computer systems. After all, if a mind can only be *completely* active (i.e. firing all of its neurons, or switching all of its gates) or inactive, that makes it a two-state system, which is a wee bit on the simplistic side for a conscious intelligence [/sarcasm]. Certainly, if it's possible to build a computers system that's even a wee bit smarter than any human (and whether or not that is possible is unknown at present), it follows that the computer should be able to build something smarter than itself, and so on, which could have drastic effects on the furture of humanity, for good or ill. See singularity theory. Personally, I think it's a bit too early to be worrying about our coming robotic evil overlords yet, as AI's aren't likely to progress much beyond glorified Eliza clones for a while. (Of course, I could be wrong... DUM DUM DUMMMM...)