= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gjm comments on [News] Turing Test passed - Less Wrong Discussion
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)
Of course the "news" is bunk, but I don't see that this LW post deserves all the downvotes it's evidently received. Halo/horns effect in action?
(I would be more certain that the post doesn't deserve the downvotes if Suart had put quotation marks around "passed" in its title.)
It passed Turing's original criteria. I don't see how I can't consider that a genuine pass, however we feel about the methods used.
I think all it shows is that Turing's original suggestion of 30% success for 5 minutes with average interrogators was probably overoptimistic. Those particular stipulations were never, it seems to me, core to what Turing was saying, and the sample conversations in his article make it clear that even if he said "average" he was actually thinking of a rather higher standard of interrogation than "Eugene" got.
And of course the whole "13-year old immigrant who doesn't speak English very well" thing is rather a cheat. Here, I've got a program that passes the Turing test. It simulates a person who doesn't know how to use a computer keyboard.
I agree. Which is why we need better tests! http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/kc8/come_up_with_better_turing_tests/