= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Bugmaster 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)
Where does this leave mute humans, or partially paralyzed humans, or any other kind of human who can't verbally speak your language ? If we still classify them as "human", then what reason do you have for rejecting the AI ?
That's why the test only offers a sufficient condition for intelligence (not a necessary one) - at least that's the standard view.
The Turing test retains validity as a general test, on all systems that are not specifically optimised to pass the test.
For instance, the Turing test is good for checking whether whole brain emulations are conscious. Conversation is enough to check that humans are conscious (and if a dog or dolphin managed conversation, it would work as a test for them as well).
This is a circular argument, IMO. How can you tell whether you're talking to a whole brain emulation, or a bot designed to mimic a whole brain emulation ?
By knowing its provenance. Maybe, when we get more sophisticated and knowledgeable about these things, by looking at its code.
In humans, when assessing whether they're lying or not, then knowing the details of their pasts (especially, for instance, knowing if they were trained to lie professionally or not) should affect your assessment of their performance.
here