Bugmaster comments on The flawed Turing test: language, understanding, and partial p-zombies - Less Wrong

11 Post author: Stuart_Armstrong 17 May 2013 02:02PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (184)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Stuart_Armstrong 17 May 2013 06:58:08PM *  2 points [-]

Not even a clear definition of what "conscious" means.

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.

The idea that "a secret Turing test is better than an overt one" is fine for Discussion, maybe, or for an open thread.

I disagree, but will take your judgement into account.

Comment author: Bugmaster 18 May 2013 09:04:44PM -2 points [-]

it's measuring something related to intelligence and consciousness, possibly, but what exactly isn't clear.

If we don't know what "intelligence" and "consciousness" are anyway, then it's a distinction without a difference.

Comment author: MugaSofer 20 May 2013 10:33:20AM 0 points [-]

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.