Slashdot Mirror
Turing Test Passed
schwit1 (797399) writes "Eugene Goostman, a computer program pretending to be a young Ukrainian boy, successfully duped enough humans to pass the iconic test. The Turing Test which requires that computers are indistinguishable from humans — is considered a landmark in the development of artificial intelligence, but academics have warned that the technology could be used for cybercrime. Computing pioneer Alan Turing said that a computer could be understood to be thinking if it passed the test, which requires that a computer dupes 30 per cent of human interrogators in five-minute text conversations."
Why do you think the test failed and is meaningless?
--ELIZA
Did anyone ask it the questions we already know will trip up a non-human?
"You're in a desert, walking along in the sand when all of a sudden you look down and see a tortoise..."
"You're watching a stage play. A banquet is in progress. The guests are enjoying an appetizer of raw oysters. The entree consists of boiled dog..."
Scott
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
Next you'll say that Turing machines were a thought experiment and never meant to perform calculations in the real world.
Heck, one of my first programs mimicked an insensate child. Here's some of the responses:
And I'm sure it used fewer lines of code.
One dog would have if it wasn't for those meddling kids.
Table-ized A.I.
Now only if it could have a 33% rate success in convincing other humans it was an exiled Nigerian dictator who needed some help moving his money out of the country.
I'd say the test is obsolete. It's not measuring the advances in AI, but the involution of humans. Have you looked at Facebook status messages?
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
Someone please verify, but I think we have a double-Whoosh here.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
Point of order: Austin is indeed a from of mental retardation.
I would extend that to most of Texas.
That's absoexactally right. The worditudinality of an utterance is defined completely by comprehension. Anywhom that says otherwise is being an obnoxialous prescriptivist!