me when the machine specifically designed to pass the turing test passes the turing test
If you can design a model that spits out self-aware-sounding things after not having been trained on a large corpus of human text, then I’ll bite. Until then, it’s crazy that anybody who knows anything about how current models are trained accepts the idea that it’s anything other than a stochastic parrot.
Glad that the article included a good amount of dissenting opinion, highlighting this one from Margaret Mitchell: “I think we can agree that systems that can manipulate shouldn’t be designed to present themselves as having feelings, goals, dreams, aspirations.”
Cool tech. We should probably set it on fire.
I agree, except with the first sentence.
- I don’t think a computer program has passed the Turing test without interpreting the rules in a very lax way and heavily stacking the deck in the bot’s favor.
- I’d be impressed if a machine does something hard even if the machine is specifically designed to do that. Something like proving the Riemann hypothesis or actually passing an honest version of Turing test.
The Turing test doesn’t say any of that. Which is why it was first passed in the 60s, and is a bad test.
Any of… what?
Yea I don’t think the Turing test is that great for establishing genuine artificial intelligence, but I also maintain that current state of the art doesn’t even pass the Turing test to an intellectually honest standard and certainly didn’t in the 60s.
