Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Contestants On the Turing Test

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the game-on dept.

vitamine73 writes "At 9 a.m. next Sunday, six computer programs — 'artificial conversational entities' — will answer questions posed by human volunteers at the University of Reading in a bid to become the first recognized 'thinking' machine. If any program succeeds, it is likely to be hailed as the most significant breakthrough in artificial intelligence since the IBM supercomputer Deep Blue beat world chess champion Garry Kasparov in 1997. It could also raise profound questions about whether a computer has the potential to be 'conscious' — and if humans should have the 'right' to switch it off."

8 of 630 comments (clear)

  1. Reach for the switch... by Kid+Zero · · Score: 5, Insightful

    and see if it complains, first. If it does, then call me back.

    1. Re:Reach for the switch... by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Desire to continue to exist is a result of being alive, and evolution, not intelligence. Hamsters don't want to die, but they aren't especially intelligent, and routinely fail self awareness tests.

      Human qualities!= intelligence.

    2. Re:Reach for the switch... by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Agreed, the human brain is greater than the sum of its parts. It's easy to show that a robot is equal to a human but it's difficult to believe that a collection of circuits feels the range of emotions and instincts biologically passed down through the ages.

      The author of the book and Piccard both sucessfully argue that Data is equal to a human. The most familiar arguments come from the TNG episode "Measure of a Man" in which Starfleet tries to claim ownership of Data so that they can dismantle him.

    3. Re:Reach for the switch... by haystor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Data was "alive" because he was defined as such in a work of *fiction*.

      He could have equally been a one eyed one horned flying purple people eater if they decided to spend 5 minutes one episode writing that in. It would have fit in as well as any other "plot" in Star Trek.

      All that Star Trek shows is that man can conceive of a machine that could be alive. It is a statement about man (the author) not any machine.

      --
      t
    4. Re:Reach for the switch... by lysergic.acid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      you're making groundless assumptions here. complex phenomena can often emerge from fairly simple systems. this can be seen in nature as well as in mathematics and AI. for instance, ant colonies demonstrate very complex group behaviors but each ant is simply following a very small set of hard coded behaviors, and on its own is quite stupid.

      your matter of fact attitude can just as easily be applied in reverse by a cybernetic being--it's difficult to believe that a collection of cells has the cognitive capabilities of an advanced AI algorithm running on a supercomputer with complex circuitry and powerful microprocessors.

      don't delude yourself. what you experience as "consciousness" is merely the unintended side-effect from the flux of chemical causality occurring in your brain. and all complex organisms are merely cooperative colonies of specialized cells, which by themselves are no more complex in structure, and no more intelligent or self-aware, than primitive unicellular organisms.

      AI researchers have an advantage over unguided biological evolution--they don't need to rely on blind trial-and-error, as they are intelligence. we can also analyze existing natural models, such as animal brains, and even human brains. there's no reason why an artificial/digital neural net can't be designed to produce true artificial intelligence. it may not be accomplished in this century, but there's no physical or metaphysical reason why it cannot be done.

  2. I doubt it will raise any questions by heatdeath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It could also raise profound questions about whether a computer has the potential to be "conscious" -- and if humans should have the 'right' to switch it off."

    Maybe in the esteemed opinion of vitamine73 it will, but if you knew anything about how artificial conversation engines were constructed, you would understand that it's anything but sentient. Right now, conversation logic is simply trick laid upon trick to stagger through passing as a human, and doesn't, at its core, contain anything remotely similar to self-aware thought.

    --
    I'm sorry. The number you have reached is imaginary. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again.
  3. Re:Well... by Brandano · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If a computer could explain it as well as you do, or couldn't explain the things you can't, apart from whether this means the computer is aware or not, does it really matter? If you see something that is so indistinguishable from a human that nobody could tell, does it matter whether it's a real human being or an emulation of one? Your best bet would be to treat it as a human, he could well be.

  4. Re:Well... by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Exactly how to treat a computer is a problem of ethics, not AI. Heck, I EAT PIGS, and those guys are pretty intelligent. I feel mildly bad about it, but they taste so good.....

    One of the computers they are using is named 'Ultra Hal.' They even dare to use that name! Hal is a good example: he could talk, reason, teach himself to read lips, TEACH HIMSELF TO LEARN THINGS OUTSIDE OF THE DOMAIN THAT ANYONE HAD IMAGINED FOR HIM, and as mentioned in the movie, no one really understood how he worked exactly, but they understood the general idea to set him up and get him going. If we can do that, then we are close to AI.

    On the other hand, a bunch of souped up Eliza bots aren't anything more than weak AI. A sad shadow of the real Hal.

    --
    Qxe4