Slashdot Mirror
The Lovelace Test Is Better Than the Turing Test At Detecting AI
meghan elizabeth writes If the Turing Test can be fooled by common trickery, it's time to consider we need a new standard. The Lovelace Test is designed to be more rigorous, testing for true machine cognition. An intelligent computer passes the Lovelace Test only if it originates a "program" that it was not engineered to produce. The new program—it could be an idea, a novel, a piece of music, anything—can't be a hardware fluke. The machine's designers must not be able to explain how their original code led to this new program. In short, to pass the Lovelace Test a computer has to create something original, all by itself.
The machine's designers must not be able to explain how their original code led to this new program.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. I have severe problem with this. This is like looking at obscurity and declaring it a soul. The measure of intelligence is that we can't understand it? Intelligence through obfuscation? There should be no way for a designer to not be able to figure out why their machine produced what it did given enough debugging.
It was passed as defined
The Turing Test was not passed, and the only people who claim it was are ignorant reporters looking for an easy story with a catchy headline and tech morons who also believe Kevin Warwick is a cyborg.
The test was rigged in every way possible:
- judges told they were talking to a child
- that doesn't speak English as a primary language
- which was programmed with the express intent of misdirection
- and only "fooled" 30% of the judges.
And, even after all that, Cleverbot did a much better job back in 2011 with a 60% success rate.
This Eugene test outcome was a complete farce -- something to remind everyone that Warwick still exists and to separate the ignorant and sensational tech news trash rags from the more legitimate sources of information.
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
No, he's not describing behaviourism. He's saying this:
If it behaves intelligently, then it is intelligent.
That's a reasonable statement to make, and if you're disagreeing with that statement, you need to say why. Converting it to a strawman and then making a bald claim that the strawman is "discredited" is a cheap rhetorical trick. And then you go on to talk about free will, which has no direct relationship with intelligence anyway. OK, I get it, you want to turn the conversation around to being about free will, because that's your ax, but telling someone their perfectly reasonable statements are "simply wrong" is a shitty way to do it. OP's point, which you're deliberately missing, is that whatever intelligence is, it is not an observer-relative thing which demands that the observer be unaware of the mechanism. If you want to engage in debate with him, try addressing that specific point, rather than a bunch of points he never made about a subject he's not discussing. And if you want to talk about free will and about how behaviourism is "discredited" maybe you could at least make a couple of points in favour of that argument, for those of us who might be interested anyway. Maybe then we can see how your belief relates to what is actually being said.
Anyway, what you're both missing is the practical issue with "The machine's designers must not be able to explain how their original code led to this new program." The machine's designers can lie, or be incapable of coming up with an explanation despite one existing, so this is a completely ill-defined criterion - which is what we're trying to get away from.