Welcome to Singulati: Our Singularity Weblog Forum
Singulati is a free digital forum open to both singularitarians and skeptics who come together to discuss, debate, collaborate, learn and network within a friendly, informal and rewarding atmosphere. Join us today: together we can build a better future, better you!A A A
Please consider registering
October 27, 2009
October 27, 2009
I agree that we may as well end up on a high note. However, I am concerned with the validity of the Turing Test, that's the problem. In the end of the day it is a very non-scientific, highly subjective and perceptual test. Say, for example, there is a committee evaluating the intelligence of rocks. And, say that for some strange reason 30% of the judges somehow conclude that the rocks have gone intelligent. Now, does that mean that they truly have become intelligent? The fact of their potential or actuall intelligence is independent from our perception just like other people may or may not perceive a person to be intelligent or not. The problem is that our perception of things doesn't make them so. We perceive that earth is flat but we now know better than that. Our sense of perception is not reliable. Thus what is needed is an updated version of the Turing Test which needs to more scientific way to evaluate the potential AI candidates... This, on the other hand, opens a whole other can of worms...
I agree. Not only is the Turing Test a 'subjective' measure of intelligence, it says nothing about the subjective experience of the computer passing it. And like I wrote in the blog "A Turing Test Point of View: Will the Singularity Be Biased", the 'Turing Test' being passed is pretty insignificant when you realize that all it really has to do is mimic intelligence as we expect to see it (praising the local team), and that we are fooled pretty easily already.
But doesn't this thread now remind you of something Kurzweil keeps pointing out; that once computers start to do things that we originally deemed fantastic, we then downgrade and undermine the significance of the computer's accomplishment?
I know a lot of the scientists behind things in the Singularity community get annoyed with Goertzel's slightly 'post modern' perspective on things, but I agree with him on most things concerning perception and subjectivity, especially as they apply to AI. Our expectations shape our definitions, and our experience of how things really are (as in, whether or not a rock is intelligent) has a lot to do with the frameworks from which we are approaching the subject. In a recent podcast interview he admits that he is tired of debating the Chinese Room type issues surrounding AI; he thinks that as we begin creating very intelligent machines these details will become less significant.
The only place I see this line of thinking really mattering (where we have to figure out the details of machine intelligence and subjectivity) in the near future is with regards to robot/AI rights. And if those debates are anything like current animal rights work being done, I don't want much to do with those debates!
Most Users Ever Online: 70
Currently Browsing this Page:
Guest Posters: 56
Newest Members:tex, wp, bella_hamilton, Jared Leidich, missfamily, tkbelmont
Administrators: Socrates: 123, zippykid: 7, davidaj: 0