= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Stuart_Armstrong 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)
Hmm, after reading the post again I have downvoted it as too weak for Main. No new concepts, no interesting questions, just some musings. Not even a clear definition of what "conscious" means. The idea that "a secret Turing test is better than an overt one" is fine for Discussion, maybe, or for an open thread.
A definition of conscious is a high bar to cross! :-) One minor point is precisely that we don't know what the Turing test is measuring - it's measuring something related to intelligence and consciousness, possibly, but what exactly isn't clear.
I think the more relevant points are the flaw in the Turing test (what should we expect after the headlines "AI passes the Turing test"?), and the possibility of quasi-p-zombies.
I disagree, but will take your judgement into account.
This must be determined empirically. Anyone have access to a reputable news source?
Actually, scratch that, let's just get the Onion to write it up.
If we don't know what "intelligence" and "consciousness" are anyway, then it's a distinction without a difference.
Just because we don't know what something is beyond a few vague verbal statements doesn't mean we can't know a few things it pretty definitely isn't. See: most of human history.