= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Stuart_Armstrong comments on [News] Turing Test passed - 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 (48)
Ok, properly rephrased: "Turing's 1950 prediction on expected level of success for his test, which he predicted to happen in 2000, has been achieved in 2014".
I think the main problem is that "Turing Test" has become an overbroad term. It extends from variants coming out of Turing's original paper (which we now know to be too weak) through to much stronger idealised versions of what the Turing test should be for it to be useful. "Nothing even close..." depends on which end of the spectrum we're thinking of.
From Turing's original paper:
Yes, I think Turing was very mistaken in his impression of what an "average" interrogator would be like.
This compensated for his over-optimism on the progress of computers, giving him an ok prediction by chance.
No. Please apply more skepticism to press releases from Kevin Warwick. See http://www.kurzweilai.net/response-by-ray-kurzweil-to-the-announcement-of-chatbot-eugene-goostman-passing-the-turing-test
Nothing Kurweil says undermines the claim Kevin made, given what Turing wrote in 1950:
Anyway, we seem to be agreeing on what actually happened (nothing much), and what its implication are (nothing much), so debating about whether this counts as a pass or not, is not particularly useful.