= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ArisKatsaris comments on The flawed Turing test: language, understanding, and partial p-zombies - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (184)
The concept of the Turing test fails to impress me in both directions (I'd guess an abundance of both false positives and false negatives)
If penguins had to determine whether humans have reached penguin-level intelligence, being able to mimick a penguin's mating-call would be just the sort of test that penguins would devise. But it's not a proper test of intelligence, it's a test of penguin-mimickry by creatures so simplistic (or simplex in the terminology of Samuel R. Delany) as to think that "Intelligence" means "Acting Much Like A Penguin Would".
The difference here is that humans are generally intelligent, whereas penguins are not. Thus, you could imitate a penguin without possessing general intelligence, but that won't be enough to imitate a human.
This is probably optimistic. There might be large areas of thought which are within our theoretical capacity that are still more or less blank spots for us.
We're probably still the nearest thing to generally intelligent on the planet.