By your reasoning, it's been a "moving target" since 1950 as Turing himself offered variations on his test in the original paper!
See, there isn't a single monolithic thing call "The Turing Test". There isn't even widespread agreement on the nature of the tests Turing proposed. When you say "The Turing test makes sense" you're saying that you have some exclusive insight in to Turing that no one else has, and that you think that that variation "makes sense". So, please, share your divinely revealed interpretation and how it overcomes the objects raised to Turing tests over the last 64 years.
With that out of the way, consider that this new variation ALSO suffers from the same problems as all other Turing test variations: They attempt to objectively infer intelligence from a subjectively interpreted, and groundless, proxy.
Maybe you should inform yourself what a Turing test actually is?
Please, enlighten me. There's at least two variations in Turing's 1950 paper, and countless others have appeared since then. (You'll also find tons of research showing that these variations are not equivalent to one another.) Which is the "real" Turing test?
Eliza didn't pass it
Weisenbaum, and countless others, would strongly disagree with you.
Turing's first failure was assuming that the questions "can machines think" and "Are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the imitation game?" are equivalent. His second was assuming that the results of such a game are something that can be measured objectively. The first is obviously wrong, the second was very clearly demonstrated to be wrong by Weisenbaum's Eliza via the differences between the reactions of technical and non-technical staff to the program.
Did you miss the last 64 years of research and philosophy? The last hold-outs, save the most delusional, we're knocked out by Searle in 1980.
It's only controversial for those who haven't read Turing's paper, or have completely failed to understand it.
Eliza, for example, highlights the massive failure in Turing's reasoning -- The question "can machines think" is not equivalent to the question "Are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the imitation game?"
Weisenbaum found the response to his program from non-technical staff disturbing.
Secretaries and nontechnical administrative staff thought the machine was a "real" therapist, and spent hours revealing their personal problems to the program. When Weizenbaum informed his secretary that he, of course, had access to the logs of all the conversations, she reacted with outrage at this invasion of her privacy. Weizenbaum was shocked by this and similar incidents to find that such a simple program could so easily deceive a naive user into revealing personal information.
Further, the so-called "Turing test" hasn't held still. Not even in his 1950 paper! (Turing proposed multiple variations on the test, if you'll recall.) Since then, a number of different versions of the "Turing test" have appeared, none of which are (like Turing's variations) are equivalent to one another!
If you need a *really* simple argument: The results of any variation of the "Turing test" are completely subjective. Consider a program that fools 100% of one set of interrogators may completely fail to fool even 10% of another set.
We're talking about "Rock Stars" not "Great software engineers".
There's not much, if any, overlap there.
I want to work with and employ people that are constantly asking and answering, "Is there a better way of doing this?"
Those guys work in architecture, not the development trenches.
it leads you to automated solutions where the brainpower of your above average developers is used to solve the difficult problems, not the mundane ones.
How long have you been at this? >99% of development doesn't involve solving difficult problems. (For LOB apps, you'd be hard-pressed to find a difficult problem!) As I said before, programming is easy and, as a consequence, it's often very boring. The last thing you want is a bored prima donna introducing unnecessary complexity (usually in the guise of half-baked 'solutions' or 'frameworks' to 'automate' or 'simplify' the boring slog that is the bulk of development) to keep themselves entertained.
As I've pointed out many, many, times here, you're the one doing the public understanding of science a huge disservice with your irrationality. I'm also the only one of us, obviously, with actual scientific credentials. See, while you were browsing the JREF forums, filling your head with nonsense, I was in grad school getting an actual education.
It's not too late for you. Lots of adults are perusing higher education these days. I highly recommend it. It sure beats watching you contribute to the erosion of the public understanding of science. You know how you feel when you see a creationist video on youtube? That's how I feel when I see nonsense from the anti-science science cheerleaders, like you.
Now imagine if programmers were overpaid, undertalented, super inflated egos, where glaring faults in code could be patched over with a public relations campaign?
he "10x productivity" idea is somewhat silly anyhow
That doesn't make much sense to me either. I've found that if you want productivity, you don't hire "rock stars" you hire average programmers that are comfortable working on teams. The best hire you can make is a guy who just does his job -- follows guidelines without complaining, completes one task and just moves on to the next.
Programming is easy. As a consequence, it gets really boring. When you're building LOB apps, it's even worse. The last thing you want on your hands is a bored "rock star" inventing new ways to keep himself entertained. I'm convinced that they're the #1 cause of unmaintainable software.
There are no souls any more than there are flying fire-breathing dragons
Prove it.:)
See, that's a claim to knowledge. That you have no reason to *believe* in such things. doesn't mean you can claim *knowledge* that they don't exist.
This isn't complicated. Faulty reasoning is always BAD, regardless of how important you find the conclusion.
You anti-science "science cheerleaders" and self-appointed "defenders of science" only care about promoting your own beliefs and obviously don't care if you support them with nonsense reasoning and laughable arguments. People like you are dangerous. You're actively doing harm to the public understanding of science.
Wrong, the claim is that we have no such thing as 'sou' that was ever measured or displayed in a measurable, repeatable way.
It's pointless to lie when anyone can see what you actually wrote by scrolling up a bit:
The answer is no, you don't have a soul, there is no such thing as a soul.
This is getting sad. Just leave science and the defense of science to those of us with ACTUAL scientific credentials. You cheerleaders are doing more damage to the public understanding of science than even the most ambitious creationist could possibly hope to achieve.
Yes, I've read his book (singular; one was enough)
Liar. Remember, you wrote:
Unless you're of the rather woolly Penrose school of thought, there's nothing "magic" involved in the physical implementation of the mind, it's just physics.
If you had ACTUALLY read any of his relevant books, you'd know that Penrose agrees that "there's nothing 'magic' involved... it's just physics."
You can argue about whether he's right or wrong
Why? The point was that your post was laughable nonsense. My only goal was to point that out, in case some unsuspecting reader thought it wasn't.
but using my opinion
Perhaps you should stop presenting your uninformed opinion as fact?
Penrose bases all of his ideas on the assumption that there are limits on computational methods that apply to machines but not to humans.
Actually, he spends a great deal of time justifying that "assumption". To claim "There is no basis for that assumption." is to disregard, out of hand, the bulk of what he's written on the subject.
Try reading his books first. You'll look less foolish.
Again, knowledge and belief are different things. You're just confused. It's probably not your fault. I blame the science cheerleaders -- they've spread more nonsense about science than the ICR could ever hope.
You're making a knowledge claim, which is completely unjustified.
It also appears that you think empiricism is the end of epistemology. You're free to believe that nonsense, but the least you could do is get it right!
Slashdot Mirror
As a logical positivist
Seriously?
It's like seeing someone proudly proclaim that they're a flat-earther. You may want to reconsider your position.
Same AC as above, I take it. It's "All your *base* are belong to us"
By your reasoning, it's been a "moving target" since 1950 as Turing himself offered variations on his test in the original paper!
See, there isn't a single monolithic thing call "The Turing Test". There isn't even widespread agreement on the nature of the tests Turing proposed. When you say "The Turing test makes sense" you're saying that you have some exclusive insight in to Turing that no one else has, and that you think that that variation "makes sense". So, please, share your divinely revealed interpretation and how it overcomes the objects raised to Turing tests over the last 64 years.
With that out of the way, consider that this new variation ALSO suffers from the same problems as all other Turing test variations: They attempt to objectively infer intelligence from a subjectively interpreted, and groundless, proxy.
It makes just as little sense as all the others.
Maybe you should inform yourself what a Turing test actually is?
Please, enlighten me. There's at least two variations in Turing's 1950 paper, and countless others have appeared since then. (You'll also find tons of research showing that these variations are not equivalent to one another.) Which is the "real" Turing test?
Eliza didn't pass it
Weisenbaum, and countless others, would strongly disagree with you.
Turing's first failure was assuming that the questions "can machines think" and "Are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the imitation game?" are equivalent. His second was assuming that the results of such a game are something that can be measured objectively. The first is obviously wrong, the second was very clearly demonstrated to be wrong by Weisenbaum's Eliza via the differences between the reactions of technical and non-technical staff to the program.
Did you miss the last 64 years of research and philosophy? The last hold-outs, save the most delusional, we're knocked out by Searle in 1980.
It's only controversial for those who haven't read Turing's paper, or have completely failed to understand it.
Eliza, for example, highlights the massive failure in Turing's reasoning -- The question "can machines think" is not equivalent to the question "Are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the imitation game?"
Weisenbaum found the response to his program from non-technical staff disturbing.
Secretaries and nontechnical administrative staff thought the machine was a "real" therapist, and spent hours revealing their personal problems to the program. When Weizenbaum informed his secretary that he, of course, had access to the logs of all the conversations, she reacted with outrage at this invasion of her privacy. Weizenbaum was shocked by this and similar incidents to find that such a simple program could so easily deceive a naive user into revealing personal information.
( From Eliza to A.L.I.C.E. )
Further, the so-called "Turing test" hasn't held still. Not even in his 1950 paper! (Turing proposed multiple variations on the test, if you'll recall.) Since then, a number of different versions of the "Turing test" have appeared, none of which are (like Turing's variations) are equivalent to one another!
If you need a *really* simple argument: The results of any variation of the "Turing test" are completely subjective. Consider a program that fools 100% of one set of interrogators may completely fail to fool even 10% of another set.
What? It's been controversial since the beginning, and a complete joke after Weizenbaum wrote Eliza.
Right on! People who think that others deserve equality are so pathetic!
The difficult part isn't finding competent developers, it's finding competent developers with the relevant domain knowledge.
Be careful! Slashdot is home to many misanthropes. You may find your 'funny' comment modded 'insightful' instead!
We're talking about "Rock Stars" not "Great software engineers".
There's not much, if any, overlap there.
I want to work with and employ people that are constantly asking and answering, "Is there a better way of doing this?"
Those guys work in architecture, not the development trenches.
it leads you to automated solutions where the brainpower of your above average developers is used to solve the difficult problems, not the mundane ones.
How long have you been at this? >99% of development doesn't involve solving difficult problems. (For LOB apps, you'd be hard-pressed to find a difficult problem!) As I said before, programming is easy and, as a consequence, it's often very boring. The last thing you want is a bored prima donna introducing unnecessary complexity (usually in the guise of half-baked 'solutions' or 'frameworks' to 'automate' or 'simplify' the boring slog that is the bulk of development) to keep themselves entertained.
That's "prototypal", and it's better in just about every way. (Google classical vs prototypal for an easy intro)
Just for you, since you're not interested in an actual education:
Why I roll my eyes when I read your replies
Now go and sin no more!
What gives you that idea?
As I've pointed out many, many, times here, you're the one doing the public understanding of science a huge disservice with your irrationality. I'm also the only one of us, obviously, with actual scientific credentials. See, while you were browsing the JREF forums, filling your head with nonsense, I was in grad school getting an actual education.
It's not too late for you. Lots of adults are perusing higher education these days. I highly recommend it. It sure beats watching you contribute to the erosion of the public understanding of science. You know how you feel when you see a creationist video on youtube? That's how I feel when I see nonsense from the anti-science science cheerleaders, like you.
Now imagine if programmers were overpaid, undertalented, super inflated egos, where glaring faults in code could be patched over with a public relations campaign?
Imagine?
he "10x productivity" idea is somewhat silly anyhow
That doesn't make much sense to me either. I've found that if you want productivity, you don't hire "rock stars" you hire average programmers that are comfortable working on teams. The best hire you can make is a guy who just does his job -- follows guidelines without complaining, completes one task and just moves on to the next.
Programming is easy. As a consequence, it gets really boring. When you're building LOB apps, it's even worse. The last thing you want on your hands is a bored "rock star" inventing new ways to keep himself entertained. I'm convinced that they're the #1 cause of unmaintainable software.
Ugh... It's like I'm talking to a wall.
I give up. Go ahead and continue to be irrational.
Can you do just one thing for me? Stop spreading your ignorance. As I said before, you're actively doing harm to the public understanding of science.
there is no way somebody is this dense.
I was thinking the same thing!
There are no souls any more than there are flying fire-breathing dragons
Prove it. :)
See, that's a claim to knowledge. That you have no reason to *believe* in such things. doesn't mean you can claim *knowledge* that they don't exist.
This isn't complicated. Faulty reasoning is always BAD, regardless of how important you find the conclusion.
You anti-science "science cheerleaders" and self-appointed "defenders of science" only care about promoting your own beliefs and obviously don't care if you support them with nonsense reasoning and laughable arguments. People like you are dangerous. You're actively doing harm to the public understanding of science.
Wrong, the claim is that we have no such thing as 'sou' that was ever measured or displayed in a measurable, repeatable way.
It's pointless to lie when anyone can see what you actually wrote by scrolling up a bit:
The answer is no, you don't have a soul, there is no such thing as a soul.
This is getting sad. Just leave science and the defense of science to those of us with ACTUAL scientific credentials. You cheerleaders are doing more damage to the public understanding of science than even the most ambitious creationist could possibly hope to achieve.
Yes, I've read his book (singular; one was enough)
Liar. Remember, you wrote:
Unless you're of the rather woolly Penrose school of thought, there's nothing "magic" involved in the physical implementation of the mind, it's just physics.
If you had ACTUALLY read any of his relevant books, you'd know that Penrose agrees that "there's nothing 'magic' involved... it's just physics."
You can argue about whether he's right or wrong
Why? The point was that your post was laughable nonsense. My only goal was to point that out, in case some unsuspecting reader thought it wasn't.
but using my opinion
Perhaps you should stop presenting your uninformed opinion as fact?
Penrose bases all of his ideas on the assumption that there are limits on computational methods that apply to machines but not to humans.
Actually, he spends a great deal of time justifying that "assumption". To claim "There is no basis for that assumption." is to disregard, out of hand, the bulk of what he's written on the subject.
Try reading his books first. You'll look less foolish.
Let me guess: You're a singularity nut?
Again, knowledge and belief are different things. You're just confused. It's probably not your fault. I blame the science cheerleaders -- they've spread more nonsense about science than the ICR could ever hope.
You're making a knowledge claim, which is completely unjustified.
It also appears that you think empiricism is the end of epistemology. You're free to believe that nonsense, but the least you could do is get it right!
What do you mean 'prove it'?
You made a positive claim. See:
The answer is no, you don't have a soul, there is no such thing as a soul.
Remember: you're talking about knowledge here, not belief, after all. Learn the difference.
you have to prove that such a thing is even a remote possibility
The only claim I made was "we don't know" which is true. We don't know.
it is an extraordinary claim to make that there is a soul
Sure. Did you miss the part where I never made such a claim?
those who make extraordinary claims have to come up with all the proof in the world to back those up.
"All the proof in the world" What does that even mean?
Sigh... I really wish the science cheerleaders with no actual scientific background would go away. They're dangerous.
Prove it :)
Neat, huh? The answer you were looking for is "we don't have a clue". Thanks for playing.
An epiphenomenalist? Wow. I thought you guys had all been shamed in to obscurity!