Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Turing Test Passed

samzenpus posted about 2 months ago | from the almost-human dept.

AI 432

schwit1 (797399) writes "Eugene Goostman, a computer program pretending to be a young Ukrainian boy, successfully duped enough humans to pass the iconic test. The Turing Test which requires that computers are indistinguishable from humans — is considered a landmark in the development of artificial intelligence, but academics have warned that the technology could be used for cybercrime. Computing pioneer Alan Turing said that a computer could be understood to be thinking if it passed the test, which requires that a computer dupes 30 per cent of human interrogators in five-minute text conversations."

cancel ×

432 comments

Turing Test Failed (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47190563)

The test itself failed and is meaningless.

Re:Turing Test Failed (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47190617)

Why do you think the test failed and is meaningless?

--ELIZA

Re:Turing Test Failed (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47190825)

Is it because you think that the test is failed because 30% on a small child doesn't seem anything like the real turing test that it is also meaningless?

Re:Turing Test Failed (4, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 months ago | (#47190899)

You may have passed the Turing Test, but you sure as hell failed the Whooosh-Test.

Re:Turing Test Failed (5, Funny)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | about 2 months ago | (#47190909)

Someone please verify, but I think we have a double-Whoosh here.

Re:Turing Test Failed (2)

TheRhinoplast (3270849) | about 2 months ago | (#47191015)

Computing... Verification complete.

Re:Turing Test Failed (5, Interesting)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 2 months ago | (#47191189)

You may consider it verified... subjectively, by a panel of judges, under very narrowly defined circumstances.

In more seriousness, GP makes a very important point. Not only was this nothing like a real Turing test (a computer would have to fool the average person in more generalized and everyday circumstances for that to happen), the real point here is that we have learned since the days of Turing that even the full-blown Turing test doesn't really indicate much of anything.

People were fooled (really, really fooled) by Eliza way back in the day. It doesn't mean squat.

Re:Turing Test Failed (4, Funny)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 2 months ago | (#47191095)

I've got this terrible pain in all the diodes down my left hand side.

--MARVIN

An autist chat simulator duped 100% of people. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47190641)

Way back in my college days, I worked in a lab with a guy who wrote a chat bot that babbled on like an autist or otherwise mentally retarded youth would.

It would dupe 100% of the people who chatted with it. They couldn't distinguish it from an actual autist.

After seeing this work in action, I learned a very good lesson: the Turing Test is nothing but academic masturbatory fodder. It is not something to be taken seriously.

Re:An autist chat simulator duped 100% of people. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47190911)

... babbled on like an autist or otherwise mentally retarded youth would.

Autist is not a word, and autism is not a form of mental retardation.

Re:An autist chat simulator duped 100% of people. (0, Troll)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 2 months ago | (#47190945)

Wow, it actually works! You've got me totally fooled.
That was exactly like an autist would react.
Except that a real autist would probably be right when trying to correct others.

Re:An autist chat simulator duped 100% of people. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47191019)

It appears that autist was first used in 1968, so I guess it has become a word through usage; fair point. Autism, however, is not a form of mental retardation.

Re:Turing Test Failed (3, Informative)

meerling (1487879) | about 2 months ago | (#47190671)

Last I heard, there were heavy restrictions on what types of questions could be asked.
Second, from what I've seen, they are little more than cleverly created scripts, and as such, despite them fooling a few people, are in no way indicative of machine intelligence.

Re:Turing Test Failed (5, Insightful)

EuclideanSilence (1968630) | about 2 months ago | (#47190677)

It's a bit of an underhanded way to pass to pretend to be someone who doesn't speak English natively. The point of the test is to have a conversation for 5 minutes, not 5 minutes of "oh I can't understand you because I'm from Ukraine".

Re:Turing Test Failed (5, Interesting)

Spy Handler (822350) | about 2 months ago | (#47190689)

Not only that, a non-native speaker who is a child.

5 minutes of "oh I can't understand you because I'm from Ukraine" plus 5 minutes of "oh I don't know about that because I'm only 13".

Re:Turing Test Failed (5, Funny)

Culture20 (968837) | about 2 months ago | (#47190735)

Heck, one of my first programs mimicked an insensate child. Here's some of the responses:





And I'm sure it used fewer lines of code.

Re:Turing Test Failed (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47190853)

I notice lots of things about children here. Why are coders so naturally drawn to pedophilia?

Re:Turing Test Failed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47191039)

You are an idiot. How on earth does one follow from the other?

Re:Turing Test Failed (0)

aldousd666 (640240) | about 2 months ago | (#47190863)

still though, it's an improvement over past attempts. I think complaining about this is kind of like complaining about the fact that 'magicians' aren't using 'real' magic. Of course it's a trick/algorithm. What's the problem with a more convincing algorithm than the last attempts getting a little praise for it?

Re:Turing Test Failed (0)

Kuroji (990107) | about 2 months ago | (#47190989)

David Copperfield doesn't try to tell me that I just don't understand his act because it's something he picked up overseas while he clumsily goes through it with obvious stunt doubles.

Penn and Teller don't try to convince me that I shouldn't be wearing my glasses when I watch them on stage and that I just don't "get it" and that I should believe they really are wizards.

Your reasoning is flawed, and this test was fundamentally flawed.

Re:Turing Test Failed (1)

aldousd666 (640240) | about 2 months ago | (#47191033)

It's still better than previous attempts. That's the point. Nobody claimed the machine is actually a thinking entity. It's just a good enough algorithm to fool some of the people some of the time. Which is better than before. Where is the problem?

Re:Turing Test Failed (5, Funny)

marcello_dl (667940) | about 2 months ago | (#47190837)

I'd say the test is obsolete. It's not measuring the advances in AI, but the involution of humans. Have you looked at Facebook status messages?

Re:Turing Test Failed (1)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | about 2 months ago | (#47190975)

Yeah, it was a stupid idea to begin with, from an otherwise-brilliant man.

Re:Turing Test Failed (-1, Flamebait)

davester666 (731373) | about 2 months ago | (#47190993)

Yes, they should throw out all the false positives, namely, any Americans that took part in the test.

I thought the slashdot moderators passed... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47190581)

... the Turing test a long time ago. That also shows that we should not put too much faith into AI, otherwise we would not have gotten slashdot beta

Re:I thought the slashdot moderators passed... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47191137)

No, the turing test requires an AI to convincingly emulate a human, not a crack-addled monkey.

intelligence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47190593)

yes well that's turing. they're intelligent when they do something useful.

Dupe 30% of humans? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47190599)

Damn dogs will pass that test.

Re:Dupe 30% of humans? (5, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | about 2 months ago | (#47190751)

Damn dogs will pass that test.

One dog would have if it wasn't for those meddling kids.

Thirty percent? (2)

mcgrew (92797) | about 2 months ago | (#47190615)

That's a pretty low bar. So to pass the test a computer needs three very low IQ subjects and seven normal people? Hell, the Alice program would probably pass. How about a more reasonable percentage, like 95%?

Re:Thirty percent? (5, Insightful)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about 2 months ago | (#47190633)

Because most humans would fail?

Re:Thirty percent? (5, Insightful)

nitehawk214 (222219) | about 2 months ago | (#47190639)

By random chance you would detect the computer 50% of the time, so that should be the goal.

Still 30% as "passing" seems unreasonably low.

Re:Thirty percent? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47190673)

Not when this test was proposed and this has been a very long time coming.

Re:Thirty percent? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47190741)

If the computer is exactly like a human, it would only get 50% half the time. Half of humans would fail the test too: we arn't trying to make a computer more human than humans: Aiming for more than 50% is just silly.

The whole idea is neat, but really not a great test of intelligence. We can't make something indistinguishable from birds, so we can't fly? Being able to impersonate something isn't really a good measure of mastery of a subject. I can't impersonate you, but that doesn't make me subhuman.

Re:Thirty percent? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47190817)

Anyone who uses IQ as a measure of intelligence is likely to fail any meaningful test. Its quasi-religious following today is as hilarious as phrenology was a century ago.

Re:Thirty percent? (1)

hackus (159037) | about 2 months ago | (#47191129)

Sort of like our educational system.

Tons of PhD's who know lots of stuff it would seem as they were at the top of their classes to memorize and take exams.

Sadly when you employ a bunch of them to write an operating system for a tough real world problem, they fail.

But, seem to do just fine as long as they are at a University.

I think the best example I can think of is Microsoft's veritable army of PhD's it employed to kill POSIX Unix architecture on the worlds exchanges. The idea was to deploy Windows on all of the exchanges and replace the UNIX systems they were using.

It not only failed, but cost the exchange in London and New York about 100 times the cost of the project.

Re:Thirty percent? (4, Informative)

bsolar (1176767) | about 2 months ago | (#47190969)

Is that 30% success rate actually meant to be the threshold to pass the test? From the article on Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] it simply looks like a prediction about how AIs in the future will fare:

Turing predicted that machines would eventually be able to pass the test; in fact, he estimated that by the year 2000, machines with 10 GB of storage would be able to fool 30% of human judges in a five-minute test, and that people would no longer consider the phrase "thinking machine" contradictory.

Re:Thirty percent? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47191221)

You've got a good point, but in fact the entire setup of the test is nonsensical. Here's how it should work:

1) Have a judge have two conversations, not necessarily at the same time, one with a human and one with a computer. (Obviously the judge does not know who is who.)
2) Give these conversations some time - more than five minutes, for sure.
3) At the end, have the judge declare who they think is the computer and who they think is the human.
4) Do this repeatedly, and use statistical methods to determine, at certain confidence levels, whether the judges were doing better than random guessing.

When someone's devised a program that fooled, say, n=200 judges whose judgement was tantamount to random guessing at a confidence level of p=0.01, start the presses.

Not literally a test (4, Informative)

Livius (318358) | about 2 months ago | (#47190621)

Should we tell them that the Turing test was a thought experiment and never meant as an actual objective test that would prove anything?

Re:Not literally a test (5, Funny)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about 2 months ago | (#47190651)

Next you'll say that Turing machines were a thought experiment and never meant to perform calculations in the real world.

Unbounded tape (4, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | about 2 months ago | (#47190723)

Turing machines are a thought experiment because of the unbounded tape, which a physical computer cannot match. Real computers are analogous to a linear bounded automation, on which halting is solvable but not always tractable.

Re:Unbounded tape (0)

EuclideanSilence (1968630) | about 2 months ago | (#47190819)

It's not the unbounded tape that makes turing machines unrealistic so much as the constant time memory access. It's conceivable that we could build a machine that grows as it computes, and so has no upperbound on memory size. It isn't conceivable that the entire memory can be accessed from a common point without at least logarithmic overhead.

Re:Unbounded tape (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47190875)

Where did Turing claim constant time memory access?

Re:Unbounded tape (4, Informative)

tepples (727027) | about 2 months ago | (#47190885)

Turing machine memory access takes linear time. To read a cell N cells away from the head takes N cycles.

Hard Science v Soft Science (1)

Etherwalk (681268) | about 2 months ago | (#47190727)

Next you'll say that Turing machines were a thought experiment and never meant to perform calculations in the real world.

the Turing Test is much more of a soft science test. It's at least as much about psychology as it is about math.

Turing machines are about math.

Thought experiments about math have no need to be applied to the real world.

Re:Not literally a test (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47190893)

Why not consult Mr. I Kant concerning the "actual" nature of "objective" while you're at it?

Look, you're making a leap of faith that there's somebody home whenever you talk to another human being (including yourself, some say), much less a computer. Even then, your odds of being decieved one way or another are rather more than nil. Money talks, bullshit walks, and so on. I'm sure more learned fellows than I can explain this much better than I, but this looks more like a publicity stunt to me than a real achievment. Tuning problem, not Turing.

Re:Not literally a test (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47190991)

Meant: "Yep, and tell them to refer to Kant, etc." Wasn't disagreeing. Sorry.

Re:Not literally a test (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47190955)

Actually the test is quiet relevant in a country like the UK or US where most of the GDP comes from the service sector. Think of all the call centre jobs that could be automated with this kind of technology.

When the bar is too high... (4, Funny)

BlackPignouf (1017012) | about 2 months ago | (#47190637)

When the bar is too high, try limbo instead of pole vault.
What's next?
"Yu So Dum, a computer program pretending to be a chinese toddler, successfully duped enough humans to pass the iconic test."

Voight-Kampff test? (5, Funny)

ScooterComputer (10306) | about 2 months ago | (#47190645)

Did anyone ask it the questions we already know will trip up a non-human?

"You're in a desert, walking along in the sand when all of a sudden you look down and see a tortoise..."
"You're watching a stage play. A banquet is in progress. The guests are enjoying an appetizer of raw oysters. The entree consists of boiled dog..."

Re:Voight-Kampff test? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47190737)

Those aren't questions.

Re:Voight-Kampff test? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47190775)

Not only are they not questions, but they make perfect sense in China and Mongolia. There are tortoises that live within small oasic lakes within the Gobi Desert. And oysters and dog are both consumed as food in parts of China and Mongolia.

Re:Voight-Kampff test? (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about 2 months ago | (#47190855)

Not only are they not questions, but they make perfect sense in China and Mongolia. There are tortoises that live within small oasic lakes within the Gobi Desert. And oysters and dog are both consumed as food in parts of China and Mongolia.

Those are question preliminaries. The tortoise one continues with: "lying on it's back, but you do nothing to help it. Why?" I'm not sure how the banquet one finishes, but I'll bet there are more unusual edibles, with a question about why the listener chooses one of them.

Re:Voight-Kampff test? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47190839)

*Whoosh*
First, the period of ellipses indicates that he didn't finish the question. I believe this is a commonly accepted punctuation in English.

Secondly, this is a reference to a book by Phllip K. Dick called "Do Androids Dream Electronic Sheep," later made into a movie with Harrison Ford called Blade Runner. The questions are posed to androids (biological robots otherwise resembling humans) to gauge their emotional response to questions. This is the only way to distinguish them from people.

Re:Voight-Kampff test? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47191077)

The AC's point is still correct, however. Those sentences do not ask questions. If they end in ellipses rather than question marks, then they clearly are not questions, regardless of their other flaws.

And it's irrelevant what pile of sci-fi crap they may have been lifted from. They obviously aren't questions.

Re:Voight-Kampff test? (1)

ScooterComputer (10306) | about 2 months ago | (#47191105)

No...although the original AC's statement is literally correct, the point he was trying to make, that I contradicted myself, is NOT correct, as explained by the second AC. Those SNIPPETS themselves are not questions, but are, in fact, the prefacing components of a longer "question" from a SERIES of questions that any fan of the material I obliquely referenced would have recognized. So the "*Whoosh*" is actually applicable on, and apparently appropriate for, more than one meta level.

I guess some people get and appreciate sly referencing, and others just don't.

Re:Voight-Kampff test? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47190767)

Orange, are you happier this year than you were last?
No. The streets are dirty.
The police are useless, always on strike.
And there's talk of war with China.

Blue, how does war make you feel?
Scared for myself and my family.

Orange, tell me you're a machine, and I'll believe that you're human.
I'm not.

Tell me that you are, and you'll pass the test.
I'm not a machine.
You're not making sense.

Orange, which smells better... a hospital corridor or a donkey's ass?
Donkey ass? What? Can you repeat that?

Blue?
I'll take the corridor.

Donkey ass? You're not making any sense at all.
I'm not a machine.

Re:Voight-Kampff test? (1)

houghi (78078) | about 2 months ago | (#47191047)

You can test yourself [allthetests.com] . I am an android.

True AI or .... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47190653)

... just dumber humans? Given the state of the Internet, politics and TV, it is obviously dumber humans.
So I expect that the Turing Test is now just a measure of when human intelligence has degraded enough to be emulated by Von Neumann machines and is not really a test for sapience.

Conversation text? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47190663)

Does someone have a link to the text of a conversation that duped a judge?

Screw cybercrime (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47190675)

Five minute text conversations pretending to be human? Sounds like the perfect technology for online dating.

Outdated test (3, Insightful)

gmuslera (3436) | about 2 months ago | (#47190679)

Turing never participated in Facebook chats. Our expectations of intelligence for the other side has been lowered a lot. We attribute to stupidity what can be explained by an AI in the other side. And of course, the stupid side could be the one talking to the AI too.

Re:Outdated test (1, Informative)

jovius (974690) | about 2 months ago | (#47190729)

The test itself is flawed in the way that it's specific purpose is to test an AI, so the expected/unexpected outcome is set from the beginning. The AI's should be in the wild and not revealed until enough data of the interaction would have been gathered.

AI's can usually be tricked by injecting surreal elements to the conversation or asking about current events, or recent things. The focus should be in the intelligence and not in the conversational or mimicking part - the current online AI's could well be classified as chatbots. The feds even use chatbots to catch pedophiles, so wouldn't they pass the Turing Test?

Re:Outdated test (4, Insightful)

sjwt (161428) | about 2 months ago | (#47190765)

A good turning test has an equal mix of humans and AI, and rewards the best in both..

Humans who pass as human, or as bots.
Bots that pass as Bots or as Human.

And has equal numbers of those shooting for each goal.

Half your entrances are trying to convince you they are human, the other half that they are AI, and half of each are lying.

Re:Outdated test (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | about 2 months ago | (#47190843)

"AI's can usually be tricked by injecting surreal elements to the conversation or asking about current events, or recent things."

Completely unnecessary. Simply carry on a conversation that requires a building on previous discussion. Every one I've ever encountered failed within a dozen exchanges. The most common technique the "AI" programmers use is to pretend to deflect the conversation. Usually quite lamely.

Re:Outdated test (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 months ago | (#47190829)

In almost all Turing tests where the computer 'passed', they've had a setup with a computer and a person. The tester chatted with both of them, and couldn't figure out which one was which.

Then when they release the actual conversations, you see the computer actually wasn't too smart, but the other person was pretending to talk like a computer. What these tests actually show is that a human can convincingly pretend to chat like a computer.

The Second Coming (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47190683)

This is the diplomatic tool used for negotiations between Ukraine and Russia. The training was apparently relatively successful.

Hasn't this happened a bunch of times? (5, Interesting)

RyanFenton (230700) | about 2 months ago | (#47190685)

Just googling a few seconds brought me to:

This article about cleverbot. [geekosystem.com] , which also eeked out enough votes to 'pass' a turing test.

It's all sounds just like Eliza [wikipedia.org] , just put into a character with enough human limitations that you'd expect it not to string together phrases well, or keep to one topic more than a sentence.

I'd interpret it basically as an automated DJ sound board with generic text instead of movie quotes - you can certainly string a lot of folks along with even really bad ones, but that speaks more to pareidolia [wikipedia.org] than anything else.

I'd classify this stage of AI closer to "parlour trick" than "might as well be human" that a lot of people think of when they hear Turing test - but that's also part of the test, to see what we consider to be human.

Ryan Fenton

AI becomes not-AI as soon as it is successful. (1)

Tenebrousedge (1226584) | about 2 months ago | (#47190919)

It's perhaps unlikely at this point that we will ever develop anything which we will recognize as "true" AI. We may have to first develop a theory of what intelligence actually is, but until then the Turing test will have to do. Siri, Watson, and even Cleverbot are equal to the A.I. of the science fiction of yesteryear, but are considered mere "parlour tricks" today. AI research must be a depressing study in that respect, similar to commercially viable fusion power -- no matter how much progress is made, the ultimate goal is never less distant.

This post brought to you by a machine learning algorithm.

Wow, people are stupid. (1)

eyenot (102141) | about 2 months ago | (#47190693)

I cast some pretty serious doubt onto the legitimacy of the claim that this machine passes a Turing Test, so much as the Turing Testers fail to be convincingly human.

Also, the robot went down much earlier than the appearance of this slashdot article, so for everybody saying the site got "slashdotted", hate to break your bubble but the world doesn't revolve around /.

http://gabrielapetrie.wordpres... [wordpress.com]

A pretty low requirement (3, Insightful)

ildon (413912) | about 2 months ago | (#47190695)

I feel like the requirements for the Turing test have been consistently lowered over the years to match what would be considered realistic to achieve rather than, as Alan Turing seemed to believe, demonstrate that a computer can be said to actually be "thinking."

Re:A pretty low requirement (5, Insightful)

tangent (3677) | about 2 months ago | (#47190773)

I'd say we keep raising the bar.

"If a computer can play chess better than a human, it's intelligent."
"No, that's just a chess program."

"If a computer can fly a plane better than a human, it's intelligent."
"No, that's just an application of control theory."

"If a computer can solve a useful subset of the knapsack problem, it's intelligent."
"No, that's just a shipping center expert system."

"If a computer can understand the spoken word, it's intelligent."
"No, that's just a big pattern matching program."

"If a computer can beat top players at Jeopardy, it's intelligent."
"No, it's just a big fast database."

Re:A pretty low requirement (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 months ago | (#47190851)

The bar is "thinks like a human." It's pretty clear Watson isn't intelligent in the normal sense of the word. He couldn't even carry on an interesting conversation with you, unless your entire conversation is an attempt to search the internet.

Also, who ever said, "If a computer can beat top players at Jeopardy, it's intelligent?" Who ever said, "If a computer can play chess better than a human, it's intelligent?" The Turing test has been around for a long time.

Probability (2)

Max Threshold (540114) | about 2 months ago | (#47190709)

What is the probability of this having happened by now if we simply repeated the Turing test with programs that previously failed?

Kids? (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about 2 months ago | (#47190711)

If virtual kids are allowed, I can make a bot pass easily:

Tester: "What's your name?"

Bot: "Goo goo ga ga"

Tester: "Oh, so you are a baby?"

Bot: "Glergggg ba ba!"

Tester: "Oh, how cuuuute!"

In other news 30% of people are scripted morons, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47190715)

and these people run call centers.

Time to move the goalposts! (2, Insightful)

jeffb (2.718) (1189693) | about 2 months ago | (#47190719)

"Well, 30% isn't very impressive."

"Well, but people expect online correspondents to be dumb."

"Well, nobody ever thought the Turing test really meant anything."

Whether you "believe in" AI or not, progress is happening.

There will always be people who refuse to believe that a computer can be intelligent "in the same sense that humans are". Eventually, though, most of us will recognize and accept that intelligence and self-awareness are mostly a matter of illusion, and that there's nothing to prevent a machine from manifesting that same illusion.

Re:Time to move the goalposts! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47190803)

So many articles about "Stupid Chatbot XYZ 9000 passed a turing test!", yet so few data logs proving any such tests ever actually occurred, let alone were passed.

Re:Time to move the goalposts! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47191143)

"Well, 30% isn't very impressive."

"Well, but people expect online correspondents to be dumb."

"Well, nobody ever thought the Turing test really meant anything."

Whether you "believe in" AI or not, progress is happening.

There will always be people who refuse to believe that a computer can be intelligent "in the same sense that humans are". Eventually, though, most of us will recognize and accept that intelligence and self-awareness are mostly a matter of illusion, and that there's nothing to prevent a machine from manifesting that same illusion.

Believing that a machine CAN be intelligent is completely different from believing that that specific computer program in TFA is intelligent.

And to be quite frank, if you can't understand that then I have to say that "Human Intelligence" isn't really a very high bar to set for computers after all..

Signed: IQBot

Not Really Passed... (4, Insightful)

NicBenjamin (2124018) | about 2 months ago | (#47190725)

It convinced 33% of judges it's a 13-year-old Ukrainian. Since the test wasn't run in Ukrainian, you can't really say it proved that it had human-level language skills. Poor syntax, grammar, not understanding the question, etc. would be excused by the Judges as the "kid" doesn't know English well.

Since the program claimed to be 13, it also did not actually have to understand most of the things there are to talk about. Or anything, really. As an Englishman you wouldn't expect a Ukrainian teen to know anything about your life in England, and in turn the computer could make up all kinds of things about it's life in Ukraine and you'd have no clue.

So this isn't really AI, it's a take on the Eliza program of the late 80s/early 90s that hides the computer better.

Now if the test had been in Ukrainian, and happened in Odessa or Kiev; or even in Russian and in Moscow; tricking 33% into thinking your computer is a 13-year-old Ukrainian boy would be really fucking hard. It would be an amazing accomplishment.

Re:Not Really Passed... (5, Funny)

James McGuigan (852772) | about 2 months ago | (#47190763)

Now only if it could have a 33% rate success in convincing other humans it was an exiled Nigerian dictator who needed some help moving his money out of the country.

...a computer could be understood to be thinking (1)

Antonovich (1354565) | about 2 months ago | (#47190753)

He wrote "The original question, "Can machines think?" I believe to be too meaningless to deserve discussion.". Which is not the same as saying "could be understood to be thinking". Turing raises a number of highly interesting questions about what it means "to think". Passing the test is an interesting and noteworthy achievement but as Turing intimates - saying "a computer could be understood to be thinking" is "too meaningless to deserve discussion".

Re:...a computer could be understood to be thinkin (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47191079)

The problem is, of course, those who think that "being understood to think" is sufficiently equivalent to thinking to make inanimate objects, and even abstractions (think of the Procrustean Bed of the Law, or the Equivocal Nature of (particularly) Public Corporations) heir to all the rights, powers, privileges, and benefits incumbent on humanity. Yoiu end up with such unconscionable, abominable oxymorons as "Intellectual Property", or "Civil Rights for Robots".

Cultural Psychosis 101

Then pity the poor Cyborg or Replicant who will fall into no such enviable category as AI's or humans, or even pets or slaves do.

MkIV-R

Re:...a computer could be understood to be thinkin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47191117)

followup: I lumped AI and humans in the same category on the assumption of an as yet to be demonstrated "true" AI, not, however according to the now prevalent and popular equivocation of most AI proponents who basiclaly just wish faking it to be good enough, for whatever legal and financial reasons. Just to be clear.

Mark Forer

30% of tech support could not pass the Turing test (2)

fleebait (1432569) | about 2 months ago | (#47190761)

30% of tech support could not pass the Turing test

A real-life test (1)

petes_PoV (912422) | about 2 months ago | (#47190779)

Let's have this program join a few forums (and maybe Facebook, too. Though twitter would just be too easy). If it manages to convince other forum members, or not get found out, that will tell you a lot about the level of online discourse but very little about the state of artificial intelligence.

Re:A real-life test (1)

raymorris (2726007) | about 2 months ago | (#47190907)

If itmadness to convince the other forum members, or not get found out, what will that two you about the level of online discourse?

Meaningless. . . totally meaningless. . . (1)

Lawrence Bottorff (3651919) | about 2 months ago | (#47190785)

. . . there are so-called live humans passing the Turing Test every day. But we're not allowed to call them what they really are: wet-ware automatons.

Artificial stupidity (2)

Culture20 (968837) | about 2 months ago | (#47190791)

Like with that chatbot that pretended to be a teenage FPS gamer. Lolbot I think it was named.

What about the converse: the anti-Turing tests? (1)

garyebickford (222422) | about 2 months ago | (#47190865)

I'd be interested in seeing how a human would do at proving they are not a computer, or attempting to prove they are. Either one would be an interesting test, whether the tester was human or computer.

Response from 100 computer science departments (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47190883)

across the US:

"Our mission has been accomplished. Coincident with the cancellation of all computer science courses, we hereby release our undergraduate and graduate students from their programs of study, and will be providing outplacement services for our faculty."

Minimum Human Requirements (2)

tpstigers (1075021) | about 2 months ago | (#47190897)

requires that a computer dupes 30 per cent of human interrogators in five-minute text conversations

Are there any requirements that must be met by the 'human interrogators'? What if they were all morons?

C'mon, it's trivial to tell a chatbot from a 13yo. (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 months ago | (#47190925)

The chatbot will make WAY fewer spelling mistakes and use WAY less textspeak abbreviations and other pseudo-cool language.

Spelling errs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47191213)

ur 31337!

BTW How do you know I didn't mean to misspell?!

MKIV-R

Text of the conversation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47190927)

Tester#30: Hi
FakeAI: gtg peepee brb 5
Tester#30: k

Not Hard (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47190995)

Does the turing test define the intelligence of the people used as human interrogators? I'm sure anyone could find enough gullible people that a decent script would fool 31% of them. I've known (relatively smart) people who seriously email back to Mailer Daemon's to ask questions about why their email didn't go through and what could be done to make it happen. One person even offered to pay for better service 'cause they needed it done and done yesterday.

Let My Inspiration Flow (1)

laejoh (648921) | about 2 months ago | (#47191009)

Information move me brightly write the code with sense and color, hold away the bugs More than this I will not ask faced with mysteries dark and vast statements just seem vain at last some rise, some fall, some climb to get to Turingtest (from http://www.kazart.com/bus_stop... [kazart.com] )

Ai vs Machine Intelligence (0)

hackus (159037) | about 2 months ago | (#47191081)

Just for those of you who do now know the difference:

AI is a field of research to develop a silicone brain that mimics the way the human brain works. Most of the excitement for that field went out the window in the early 1990's with all of the Japanese robotic mania.

After the field failed to produce, people had a rethink about intelligence.

Now, we have the new field of Machine Intelligence, which doesn't try to mimic the human brain, but tries to take advantage of what machines are good at: Computational Accuracy, Storage, and lightening fast speed.

So when you are discussing Artificial Intelligence, and Machine Intelligence realize the two fields are very much seperate.

As for the Turing test, I don't think it passed, because the experiment hasn't been repeated by enough researchers to form an opinion of wether or not the consensus is it did pass, and we can stop doing Turing tests.

Turing test is off topic (2)

presidenteloco (659168) | about 2 months ago | (#47191101)

A turing test is testing such human experience aspects as:
- aculturation (what the person has been taught through education and socialization during their whole life up to that point)
- bias in expression based on typical human likes, dislikes, needs, desires, avoidances

Tarzan / wolf-boy would probably fail the Turing test based on the first factor. Might be very intelligent though.
Second aspect is just characteristic of a particular type of being that makes use of intelligence. Intelligent aliens would also have likes, dislikes, needs, desires, avoidances, simply based on also being self-interested "keep it together" beings, but the specifics might be very different, and would cause a fail of TT.

These experiential and situational and specific-agent-needs-desires-avoidances aspects have very little to do with the essence of intelligence.
General intelligence is probably better assessed through specific carefully designed tests designed to assess:
1) Concept learning, procedure learning capability in arbitrarily general contexts
2) Prediction of situation outcomes with novelty in situation presentations.
3) Ability to answer questions or take actions that show comprehension of essential / invariant aspects of situations, after opportunity to learn similar situations through either direct sensory input or linguistic instruction.

Turing? Young boy? is this some anti-gay joke? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47191133)

If "academics" think these programs could be used in crime, how do they feel about automobiles, butter knives and currency?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...