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."
Because most humans would fail?
By random chance you would detect the computer 50% of the time, so that should be the goal.
Still 30% as "passing" seems unreasonably low.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
It's a bit of an underhanded way to pass to pretend to be someone who doesn't speak English natively. The point of the test is to have a conversation for 5 minutes, not 5 minutes of "oh I can't understand you because I'm from Ukraine".
Turing machines are a thought experiment because of the unbounded tape, which a physical computer cannot match. Real computers are analogous to a linear bounded automation, on which halting is solvable but not always tractable.
It convinced 33% of judges it's a 13-year-old Ukrainian. Since the test wasn't run in Ukrainian, you can't really say it proved that it had human-level language skills. Poor syntax, grammar, not understanding the question, etc. would be excused by the Judges as the "kid" doesn't know English well.
Since the program claimed to be 13, it also did not actually have to understand most of the things there are to talk about. Or anything, really. As an Englishman you wouldn't expect a Ukrainian teen to know anything about your life in England, and in turn the computer could make up all kinds of things about it's life in Ukraine and you'd have no clue.
So this isn't really AI, it's a take on the Eliza program of the late 80s/early 90s that hides the computer better.
Now if the test had been in Ukrainian, and happened in Odessa or Kiev; or even in Russian and in Moscow; tricking 33% into thinking your computer is a 13-year-old Ukrainian boy would be really fucking hard. It would be an amazing accomplishment.
A good turning test has an equal mix of humans and AI, and rewards the best in both..
Humans who pass as human, or as bots.
Bots that pass as Bots or as Human.
And has equal numbers of those shooting for each goal.
Half your entrances are trying to convince you they are human, the other half that they are AI, and half of each are lying.
You have 5 Moderator Points!
Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
I'd say we keep raising the bar.
"If a computer can play chess better than a human, it's intelligent."
"No, that's just a chess program."
"If a computer can fly a plane better than a human, it's intelligent."
"No, that's just an application of control theory."
"If a computer can solve a useful subset of the knapsack problem, it's intelligent."
"No, that's just a shipping center expert system."
"If a computer can understand the spoken word, it's intelligent."
"No, that's just a big pattern matching program."
"If a computer can beat top players at Jeopardy, it's intelligent."
"No, it's just a big fast database."
And a chair is not a chair. It seems you are not living in the real world. Except for high functioning autism, autism is a severe mental dysfunction.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
As the old saying goes: "Is a Turing test valid if the human is an idiot?"
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
What has been conducted precisely matches Turing's proposed immitation game. I don't know what do you mean by a "full-blown Turing test", the immitiation game is what it has always meant, including the 30% bar (because the human has three options - human, machine, don't know). Of coure, it is nowadays not considered a final goal, but it is still a useful landmark even if we have a long way to go.
That's the trouble with AI, the expectation are perpetuouly shifting. A few years in the past, a hard task is considered impossible for computers to achieve, or at least many years away. Then it's pased and the verdict prompty shifts to "well, it wasn't that hard anyway and doesn't mean much", and a year from now we take the new capability of machines as a given.
It's not the fall that kills you. It's the sudden stop at the end. -Douglas Adams
People were fooled (really, really fooled) by Eliza way back in the day. It doesn't mean squat.
No. They weren't. I speak as somebody who's had a go with Eliza and you could spot that it was a computer program in a couple of minutes if you wanted to. It's more likely that people were suspending their disbelief than really fooled.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
What has been conducted precisely matches Turing's proposed immitation game.
NO, it DEFINITELY does NOT. For just one example, it tries to get around the "natural language" stipulation by pretending to be someone who doesn't fully know that language, and uses a simplified version instead.
That is a very clear attempt to subvert the rules.
I could go on, but it isn't necessary. It wasn't a real Turing test. We can leave aside the other nuances because the first criterion wasn't met.
What has been conducted precisely matches Turing's proposed immitation game.
While they may have matched the letter of it, they subverted the spirit of the test. This quote from the programme maker in particular is highly suggestive that they lowered the standards :-
To illustrate what I mean by lowered standards, imagine if I set up the same test, with 10 entries, and I tell the judges some of them are 2 year old babies playing on the keyboard. Armed with this information, some of the judges are likely to interpret even gibberish as typed by a human and it is not too farfetched to get more than 30% of them to agree.
This "result" is bollocks and a pure publicity stunt conveniently on falling on the 60th anniversary of Turing's death.
I want to see the actual transcripts which do not appear to have been released so far, which in itself is highly suspicious.