Posted on 03/18/2004 11:08:23 AM PST by John Jorsett
Good eye. There was a program a lot like this many years ago that impersonated a shrink. The mark would say something. The shrink would pick out a word from the mark's sentence and ask a question about it.
For it's era, it was remarkably lifelike. The program referred to in the article is a lot more sophisticated because it obviously has access to a database of common sense stuff. EG you run into crowds on holidays and crowds mean a lot of people. So when the mark used the two words in a sentence, it could check the database for facts about crowds and holidays that it could refer to. Since the kid said there were no crowds, the program contradicts the kid's statement.
The illusion would, I suspect, rapidly fall apart with detailed questioning.
I do not think the program comes close to passing the Turing Test for intelligence.
The problem is that, as you mention, it's very very processor intensive. Many computers running in parallel, if I recall correctly.
Exactly. If this thing can really do what he says, he's made some fundamental breakthroughs on the problem of AI, which is what makes me extremely skeptical so far.
He proposed that if a computer and a human could have conversations via keyboard with a human interrogator. If the third person could not tell which was the human and which was the computer, then the computer was 'thinking.' The turing test has not been universally accepted. It has generated 50 years of controversy. The following excerpt may be more specific. see also http://cogsci.ucsd.edu/~asaygin/tt/ttest.html#new
Turing’s aim is to provide a method to assess whether or not a machine can think. He states at the beginning of his paper that the question "Can machines think?" is a highly ambiguous one. He attempts to transform this into a more concrete form TURING TEST: 50 YEARS LATER 465 Figure 1. The Imitation Game: Stage 1. by proposing what is called the Imitation Game (IG). The game is played with a man (A), a woman (B) and an interrogator (C) whose gender is unimportant. The interrogator stays in a room apart from A and B. The objective of the interrogator is to determine which of the other two is the woman while the objective of both the man and the woman is to convince the interrogator that he/she is the woman and the other is not. This situation is depicted in Figure 1. The means through which the decision, the convincing, and the deception are to take place is a teletype connection. Thus, the interrogator asks questions in written natural language and receives answers in written natural language. Questions can be on any subject imaginable, from mathematics to poetry, from the weather to chess. According to Turing, the new agenda to be discussed, instead of the equivocal "Can machines think?", can be ‘What will happen when a machine takes the part of A in this game? Will the interrogator decide wrongly as often when the game is played like this as he does when the game is played between a man and a woman?’ (Turing, 1950, p. 434). Figure 2 depicts the new situation. At one point in the paper Turing replaces the question "Can machines think?" by the following: ‘Let us fix our attention to one particular digital computer C. Is it true that by modifying this computer to have an adequate storage, suitably increasing its speed of action and providing it with an appropriate programme, C can be made to play satisfactorily the part of A in the imitation game, the part of B being taken by a man?’ (Turing, 1950, p. 442, emphasis added). Notice that the woman has disappeared altogether. But the objectives of A, B, and the interrogator remain unaltered; at least Turing does not explicitly state any change.
He proposed that if a computer and a human could have conversations via keyboard with a human interrogator. If the third person could not tell which was the human and which was the computer, then the computer was 'thinking.' The turing test has not been universally accepted. It has generated 50 years of controversy. The following excerpt may be more specific. see also http://cogsci.ucsd.edu/~asaygin/tt/ttest.html#new
Turing’s aim is to provide a method to assess whether or not a machine can think. He states at the beginning of his paper that the question "Can machines think?" is a highly ambiguous one. He attempts to transform this into a more concrete form TURING TEST: 50 YEARS LATER 465 Figure 1. The Imitation Game: Stage 1. by proposing what is called the Imitation Game (IG). The game is played with a man (A), a woman (B) and an interrogator (C) whose gender is unimportant. The interrogator stays in a room apart from A and B. The objective of the interrogator is to determine which of the other two is the woman while the objective of both the man and the woman is to convince the interrogator that he/she is the woman and the other is not. This situation is depicted in Figure 1. The means through which the decision, the convincing, and the deception are to take place is a teletype connection. Thus, the interrogator asks questions in written natural language and receives answers in written natural language. Questions can be on any subject imaginable, from mathematics to poetry, from the weather to chess. According to Turing, the new agenda to be discussed, instead of the equivocal "Can machines think?", can be ‘What will happen when a machine takes the part of A in this game? Will the interrogator decide wrongly as often when the game is played like this as he does when the game is played between a man and a woman?’ (Turing, 1950, p. 434). Figure 2 depicts the new situation. At one point in the paper Turing replaces the question "Can machines think?" by the following: ‘Let us fix our attention to one particular digital computer C. Is it true that by modifying this computer to have an adequate storage, suitably increasing its speed of action and providing it with an appropriate programme, C can be made to play satisfactorily the part of A in the imitation game, the part of B being taken by a man?’ (Turing, 1950, p. 442, emphasis added). Notice that the woman has disappeared altogether. But the objectives of A, B, and the interrogator remain unaltered; at least Turing does not explicitly state any change.
You beta versions are so cute. ;}
I would think parental supervision over possible violation of someones rights could keep child molesters from finding victims. I completely and totally agree that people who prey on children are dispicable and probably should never get out of jail due to the recitivism rates.
Just think an ounce of prevention on the parents parts would keep us from having to cross the moral line ourselves to give them a pound of cure.
One person will add a fragment of the story, and another will build it up more, until we finally realize we're talking about something that is utterly imaginary and we stop and laugh.
Seems like attempting something like this would quickly unveil any programs that weren't truly artificial inteligence. In fact a true AI may not be able to fathom such a conversation.
Me and my friends AI-busting services can be had by and of you AI guys for a small but fair portion of any government grants you run across :)..j/k
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.