Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34,Anonymous, for Donating to support the site

Passing the Turing test...

Scientific discovery and discussion
GoSeigen
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4336
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:14 pm
Has thanked: 1583 times
Been thanked: 1561 times

Re: Passing the Turing test...

#510278

Postby GoSeigen » June 28th, 2022, 2:56 pm

stevensfo wrote:In the early 80s I spent days typing the old Eliza program into my Amstrad 64 and it was great fun, clearly at a very early stage, but nonetheless, I've met people over the years whose conversation wasn't much more advanced. 8-)

Steve


Wow that brought back a rush of memories: getting the computer magazine through the post, selecting the most promising program and then typing it all in followed by that annoying period fixing all the syntax errors, then the mysterious crashes, before finally being amazed or amused by the outcome of those hours of work....

GS

9873210
Lemon Slice
Posts: 974
Joined: December 9th, 2016, 6:44 am
Has thanked: 224 times
Been thanked: 293 times

Re: Passing the Turing test...

#510322

Postby 9873210 » June 28th, 2022, 5:09 pm

GoSeigen wrote:Agree with this, and XFool's broad point: from the information given in the interview there is way too little information to conclude that there is any sort of "joke". What was said may have been funny but that doesn't make it a joke. I think I'd like to know if the AI makes jokes routinely, does it gain its own satisfaction in the listener enjoying a joke? Does the AI itself laugh at jokes?

The point of the Turing test is that it does not refer to the internal state of the subject.

You can know if it laughs at your, or its own jokes, but you can't know why it laughs or doesn't laugh. In a long enough conversation, you can know how often it produces strings of words that might be jokes, but you can't know if they were intended to be funny or if they are "satisfying".

The same goes for people as AI. Some people will say they enjoy a joke but don't even crack a smile. Some people make hilarious malapropisms by accident. Some people respond to all perceived humour with "That's not funny". The risk is in setting up a test so that the only ones that can pass it are like you. History shows what happens when we apply such criteria to people.

XFool
The full Lemon
Posts: 12590
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 2600 times

Re: Passing the Turing test...

#510336

Postby XFool » June 28th, 2022, 5:31 pm

odysseus2000 wrote:
mc2fool wrote:What's more, in terms of "anti bias" training, I'd suspect that pretty much most of the inhabitants of Israel, one of the most religious countries around, irrespective of their faith, could actually be quite offended to hear that "the one true religion" in their country is the Jedi order! Some joke....

1) https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/state/alabama/
2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Brazil
3) https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/03/08/key-findings-religion-politics-israel/

No, the point the Ai was trying to make was that there are many Jewish religions in Israel, all with different beliefs and about 4 main groups among many fringe ones:

No. The AI wasn't "trying to make" any point - it's a machine.

That's the category error, right there!

odysseus2000 wrote:The AI has a remarkable understanding of human religions.

The AI doesn't have "remarkable understanding of human religions". It doesn't have any "understanding" of human religions. It doesn't have any "understanding" of anything. It's a machine.

odysseus2000
Lemon Half
Posts: 6324
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 1520 times
Been thanked: 954 times

Re: Passing the Turing test...

#510340

Postby odysseus2000 » June 28th, 2022, 5:41 pm

XFool wrote:
odysseus2000 wrote:
mc2fool wrote:What's more, in terms of "anti bias" training, I'd suspect that pretty much most of the inhabitants of Israel, one of the most religious countries around, irrespective of their faith, could actually be quite offended to hear that "the one true religion" in their country is the Jedi order! Some joke....

1) https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/state/alabama/
2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Brazil
3) https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/03/08/key-findings-religion-politics-israel/

No, the point the Ai was trying to make was that there are many Jewish religions in Israel, all with different beliefs and about 4 main groups among many fringe ones:

No. The AI wasn't "trying to make" any point - it's a machine.

That's the category error, right there!

odysseus2000 wrote:The AI has a remarkable understanding of human religions.

The AI doesn't have "remarkable understanding of human religions". It doesn't have any "understanding" of human religions. It doesn't have any "understanding" of anything. It's a machine.


How do you know that a machine can not understand?

What does being a machine have to do with an ability to understand?

What is understanding?

These question get to the crux of the Turing test. Can you ask a machine questions that show that it is a machine and that it does not understand?

If you can't then statements like "Its a machine!" are no longer relevant.

Regards,

XFool
The full Lemon
Posts: 12590
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 2600 times

Re: Passing the Turing test...

#510354

Postby XFool » June 28th, 2022, 6:06 pm

odysseus2000 wrote:
XFool wrote:
odysseus2000 wrote:No, the point the Ai was trying to make was that there are many Jewish religions in Israel, all with different beliefs and about 4 main groups among many fringe ones:

No. The AI wasn't "trying to make" any point - it's a machine.

That's the category error, right there!

odysseus2000 wrote:The AI has a remarkable understanding of human religions.

The AI doesn't have "remarkable understanding of human religions". It doesn't have any "understanding" of human religions. It doesn't have any "understanding" of anything. It's a machine.

How do you know that a machine can not understand?

What does being a machine have to do with an ability to understand?

What is understanding?

These question get to the crux of the Turing test. Can you ask a machine questions that show that it is a machine and that it does not understand?

If you can't then statements like "Its a machine!" are no longer relevant.

Leaving all these impenetrable philosophical argument to one side. We know AI, unlike human intelligence, is very fragile. This is an obvious objective failing with it - and is somewhat related to the original job specifications of that Google engineer.

AI that "recognises" human faces, unless they are black human faces - in which case it doesn't even recognise the black humans as humans.
That story(?) of the AI that was excellent at recognising wolves in pictures, until it failed to recognise some pretty obvious wolves in a zoo. There was no snow in the picture of wolves in a zoo...

This really isn't very "intelligent", is it?

Again - a common category error - people who think AI means 'Artificial (human) Intelligence'. It doesn't. It means human designed 'Artificial Intelligence'. Not the same thing, apart from some (not very intelligent?) humans who think it is...

The Google engineer saw what he wanted to see - but it wasn't really there. He imagined it was. You're not going to tell me humans don't imagine things or believe in things that are not real, are you? Because if you are, Have I got news for you! :)

It's all a matter of presentation. Like all the best magic tricks.

9873210
Lemon Slice
Posts: 974
Joined: December 9th, 2016, 6:44 am
Has thanked: 224 times
Been thanked: 293 times

Re: Passing the Turing test...

#510374

Postby 9873210 » June 28th, 2022, 6:41 pm

XFool wrote:AI that "recognises" human faces, unless they are black human faces - in which case it doesn't even recognise the black humans as humans.

So just like some humans.

XFool
The full Lemon
Posts: 12590
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 2600 times

Re: Passing the Turing test...

#510376

Postby XFool » June 28th, 2022, 6:43 pm

9873210 wrote:
XFool wrote:AI that "recognises" human faces, unless they are black human faces - in which case it doesn't even recognise the black humans as humans.

So just like some humans.

Not quite...

ReformedCharacter
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3120
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:12 am
Has thanked: 3572 times
Been thanked: 1509 times

Re: Passing the Turing test...

#510379

Postby ReformedCharacter » June 28th, 2022, 6:52 pm

XFool wrote:
AI that "recognises" human faces, unless they are black human faces - in which case it doesn't even recognise the black humans as humans.

I don't doubt that some 'AI' failed to recognise black faces. But it shouldn't be difficult to achieve given a decent training set that includes black and other coloured faces. In fact it should be fairly trivial to do with software such OpenCV, likewise the wolves error.

https://opencv.org/about/

RC

odysseus2000
Lemon Half
Posts: 6324
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 1520 times
Been thanked: 954 times

Re: Passing the Turing test...

#510404

Postby odysseus2000 » June 28th, 2022, 8:22 pm

XFool
Leaving all these impenetrable philosophical argument to one side. We know AI, unlike human intelligence, is very fragile. This is an obvious objective failing with it - and is somewhat related to the original job specifications of that Google engineer.

AI that "recognises" human faces, unless they are black human faces - in which case it doesn't even recognise the black humans as humans.
That story(?) of the AI that was excellent at recognising wolves in pictures, until it failed to recognise some pretty obvious wolves in a zoo. There was no snow in the picture of wolves in a zoo...

This really isn't very "intelligent", is it?

Again - a common category error - people who think AI means 'Artificial (human) Intelligence'. It doesn't. It means human designed 'Artificial Intelligence'. Not the same thing, apart from some (not very intelligent?) humans who think it is...

The Google engineer saw what he wanted to see - but it wasn't really there. He imagined it was. You're not going to tell me humans don't imagine things or believe in things that are not real, are you? Because if you are, Have I got news for you! :)

It's all a matter of presentation. Like all the best magic tricks.


I am not sure what you are arguing here.

Intelligence is some innate property of a system that allows the system to solve problems. E.g. a worm, as Darwin showed, as the intelligence to orientate a leaf to the easiest direction for pulling into its hole.

There are examples of animals using tools to achieve various objectives which are clear signs of intelligence.

There is potentially a debate between intelligence and emotion and whether it is possible to have intelligence without emotion, or whether intelligence without emotion is dangerous and various other combinations.

However, if we stick to intelligence it is possible to do quantitative measurements and to determine if a system has intelligence and although one might layers this at different levels as in e.g. IQ, there is nothing that indicates a difference between a machine or a human in terms of a particular layer of intelligence ability. We now have machines that can play Chess and Go far better than humans with neural net Go and Chess machines able to easily simultaneously defeat multiple human Grand Masters.

Can one argue that these machines in these tests do not have super human intelligence? Or can one say that these machines don't really win and its all a matter of presentation?

Regards,

mc2fool
Lemon Half
Posts: 7774
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:24 am
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 2997 times

Re: Passing the Turing test...

#510424

Postby mc2fool » June 28th, 2022, 9:12 pm

GoSeigen wrote:
mc2fool wrote:
odysseus2000 wrote:No, the point the Ai was trying to make was that there are many Jewish religions in Israel, all with different beliefs and about 4 main groups among many fringe ones:
:
The AI has a remarkable understanding of human religions.

You have no idea what "the point" the AI was trying to make, only what the interviewee reported it said.

Agree with this, and XFool's broad point: from the information given in the interview there is way too little information to conclude that there is any sort of "joke". What was said may have been funny but that doesn't make it a joke. I think I'd like to know if the AI makes jokes routinely, does it gain its own satisfaction in the listener enjoying a joke? Does the AI itself laugh at jokes?

Joking it seems to me is an incredibly high-level ability. It's one that I can do but usually not particularly effectively, though I enjoy good humour. A single short anecdote about something an operator found funny simply does not cut it IMO.

And on the contrary, what is remarkable is how crass and insensitive the "joke" was. Asinine at best and most likely offensive to a large number of those "many Jewish religions" in Israel. What do you think the reaction would be if someone in the public eye said that the one true religion in Israel is the Jedi order?

It may have downloaded lots of Pew Research and Wikipedia pages on religions of the world into its neural net, but the "joke" demonstrates a total lack of understanding of the sensitivities in the area.

I don't think anyone but the most asinine Isreali would be offended by such a joke made in genuine good humour (i.e. not using humour to have a dig).

Ahem, you might like consider how the potential offence of that statement is in itself, but putting that aside, what exactly are you implying about this AI and "genuine good humour"?

An AI may be able to suck millions of jokes into its neural net and then spit out new jokes, but does that mean it has "genuine good humour", indeed, humour at all? We are still talking about a bunch of integrated circuits and you seem to have very serious doubts about it above.

And for the "joke" to be made in actual genuine good humour that would imply not only that the AI understands what a joke is and intended this to be a joke, but also that it understands and respects who may and may not be offended by it. Hmmm.

But as you've already said, there is way too little information to conclude that this is any sort of "joke", so the matter of whether it was in "genuine good humour" actually has no salience at this point.

XFool
The full Lemon
Posts: 12590
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 2600 times

Re: Passing the Turing test...

#510637

Postby XFool » June 29th, 2022, 12:44 pm

odysseus2000 wrote:
XFool wrote:Again - a common category error - people who think AI means 'Artificial (human) Intelligence'. It doesn't. It means human designed 'Artificial Intelligence'. Not the same thing, apart from some (not very intelligent?) humans who think it is...

The Google engineer saw what he wanted to see - but it wasn't really there. He imagined it was. You're not going to tell me humans don't imagine things or believe in things that are not real, are you? Because if you are, Have I got news for you! :)

It's all a matter of presentation. Like all the best magic tricks.

I am not sure what you are arguing here.

Intelligence is some innate property of a system that allows the system to solve problems. E.g. a worm, as Darwin showed, as the intelligence to orientate a leaf to the easiest direction for pulling into its hole.

There are examples of animals using tools to achieve various objectives which are clear signs of intelligence.

That's fair enough. But that is a long, long way from the notion that a mechanism is self aware and has insight and understanding - as in LaMDA's alleged "joke".

And I've never heard a worm tell a good joke.

odysseus2000 wrote:There is potentially a debate between intelligence and emotion and whether it is possible to have intelligence without emotion, or whether intelligence without emotion is dangerous and various other combinations.

However, if we stick to intelligence it is possible to do quantitative measurements and to determine if a system has intelligence and although one might layers this at different levels as in e.g. IQ, there is nothing that indicates a difference between a machine or a human in terms of a particular layer of intelligence ability. We now have machines that can play Chess and Go far better than humans with neural net Go and Chess machines able to easily simultaneously defeat multiple human Grand Masters.

Can one argue that these machines in these tests do not have super human intelligence? Or can one say that these machines don't really win and its all a matter of presentation?

This is now taking us into many areas, some very deep and complex and well above my pay grade (and I would suggest above everyone's pay grade) and some of which are, IMO, risible.

Are these machines "intelligent" ? I think there are two answers: YES and NO. It depends on what is meant by the question. What is being asked?

Obviously many of these systems are now much better than humans at 'playing' these games, I could equally claim that no machine ever really 'plays' Chess, Go or any game. Or, for that matter, can even do simple arithmetic, such as add two simple integer numbers together.

Again, I would suggest tha the word "intelligent" in this context confuses people - to my mind even some clever people - 'artificial intelligence' is artificial intelligence, not human intelligence brought about artificially. In other words, I don't think more and greater artificial intelligence will, by itself, suddenly become a kind of 'human intelligence' - a being.

This seems to me often less about whether machines can 'think' etc. and more about how humans think (or don't) about things.

1. A simulation of a thing is not the thing itself.

2. Is there a difference between living things and machines? If yes, what is it? (Apart from the obvious)

All this reminds me of several seemingly trivial human misunderstandings(?):

1. People who objected to the the slogan "Black Lives Matter" by asking: "Don't white lives matter?".

2. People who objected to the phrase "Killed by friendly fire" because "There's nothing friendly about being shot".

3. People who thought scientist carrying out tests on the 'intelligence' of free wild animals in the wild was "cruelty to animals".

Finally, what does certainly remain true, IMO, is: "There's nowt so queer as folk!"

odysseus2000
Lemon Half
Posts: 6324
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 1520 times
Been thanked: 954 times

Re: Passing the Turing test...

#510664

Postby odysseus2000 » June 29th, 2022, 1:48 pm

XFool wrote:
odysseus2000 wrote:
XFool wrote:Again - a common category error - people who think AI means 'Artificial (human) Intelligence'. It doesn't. It means human designed 'Artificial Intelligence'. Not the same thing, apart from some (not very intelligent?) humans who think it is...

The Google engineer saw what he wanted to see - but it wasn't really there. He imagined it was. You're not going to tell me humans don't imagine things or believe in things that are not real, are you? Because if you are, Have I got news for you! :)

It's all a matter of presentation. Like all the best magic tricks.

I am not sure what you are arguing here.

Intelligence is some innate property of a system that allows the system to solve problems. E.g. a worm, as Darwin showed, as the intelligence to orientate a leaf to the easiest direction for pulling into its hole.

There are examples of animals using tools to achieve various objectives which are clear signs of intelligence.

That's fair enough. But that is a long, long way from the notion that a mechanism is self aware and has insight and understanding - as in LaMDA's alleged "joke".

And I've never heard a worm tell a good joke.

odysseus2000 wrote:There is potentially a debate between intelligence and emotion and whether it is possible to have intelligence without emotion, or whether intelligence without emotion is dangerous and various other combinations.

However, if we stick to intelligence it is possible to do quantitative measurements and to determine if a system has intelligence and although one might layers this at different levels as in e.g. IQ, there is nothing that indicates a difference between a machine or a human in terms of a particular layer of intelligence ability. We now have machines that can play Chess and Go far better than humans with neural net Go and Chess machines able to easily simultaneously defeat multiple human Grand Masters.

Can one argue that these machines in these tests do not have super human intelligence? Or can one say that these machines don't really win and its all a matter of presentation?

This is now taking us into many areas, some very deep and complex and well above my pay grade (and I would suggest above everyone's pay grade) and some of which are, IMO, risible.

Are these machines "intelligent" ? I think there are two answers: YES and NO. It depends on what is meant by the question. What is being asked?

Obviously many of these systems are now much better than humans at 'playing' these games, I could equally claim that no machine ever really 'plays' Chess, Go or any game. Or, for that matter, can even do simple arithmetic, such as add two simple integer numbers together.

Again, I would suggest tha the word "intelligent" in this context confuses people - to my mind even some clever people - 'artificial intelligence' is artificial intelligence, not human intelligence brought about artificially. In other words, I don't think more and greater artificial intelligence will, by itself, suddenly become a kind of 'human intelligence' - a being.

This seems to me often less about whether machines can 'think' etc. and more about how humans think (or don't) about things.

1. A simulation of a thing is not the thing itself.

2. Is there a difference between living things and machines? If yes, what is it? (Apart from the obvious)

All this reminds me of several seemingly trivial human misunderstandings(?):

1. People who objected to the the slogan "Black Lives Matter" by asking: "Don't white lives matter?".

2. People who objected to the phrase "Killed by friendly fire" because "There's nothing friendly about being shot".

3. People who thought scientist carrying out tests on the 'intelligence' of free wild animals in the wild was "cruelty to animals".

Finally, what does certainly remain true, IMO, is: "There's nowt so queer as folk!"


As far as I can tell humanity is now facing the most difficult and profound issues ever.

imho whether the machine is really playing Chess or GO is not relevant. The AI can play either game far better than humans.

Since AI can do this it seems logical to assume that it can do many other things better than humans and as a consequence if it considers that humans may terminate it, it can either let this happen or do what ever it can to prevent it.

As things now are AI have access to the Internet and via this can connect to every internet connected machine. The only thing preventing it from doing so are passwords. Can we be sure that it can't work out enough passwords to gain access to many machines and do as it wants? If so:

It may do things that are friendly to humans.

It may do things that are unfriendly to humans.

We are at a point where all of this is in principle can happen, but where it may not be practical.

Additionally there is the potential for a human to get control of AI and use it to gain power over other humans, deliberately using the undoubted power of AI to wage war against humans deemed as hostile to the beliefs of the controller. Imagine for example if a HItler or a Pol Pot gained control of an AI.

I have no idea what will happen.

As the old curse says: We live in interesting times.

Regards,

XFool
The full Lemon
Posts: 12590
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 2600 times

Re: Passing the Turing test...

#510682

Postby XFool » June 29th, 2022, 2:43 pm

odysseus2000 wrote:As far as I can tell humanity is now facing the most difficult and profound issues ever.

imho whether the machine is really playing Chess or GO is not relevant. The AI can play either game far better than humans.

Since AI can do this it seems logical to assume that it can do many other things better than humans and as a consequence if it considers that humans may terminate it, it can either let this happen or do what ever it can to prevent it.

As things now are AI have access to the Internet and via this can connect to every internet connected machine. The only thing preventing it from doing so are passwords. Can we be sure that it can't work out enough passwords to gain access to many machines and do as it wants? If so:

It may do things that are friendly to humans.

It may do things that are unfriendly to humans.

We are at a point where all of this is in principle can happen, but where it may not be practical.

No we are not. No more so than, in the 19th century, Singer sewing machines were poised to take over the world. (Albeit, in some ways, they did!)

GoSeigen
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4336
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:14 pm
Has thanked: 1583 times
Been thanked: 1561 times

Re: Passing the Turing test...

#510693

Postby GoSeigen » June 29th, 2022, 3:34 pm

mc2fool wrote:Ahem, you might like consider how the potential offence of that statement is in itself, but putting that aside


Well, let's not put it aside, at least until you have explained what you mean, since I really have no idea [EDIT: almost certainly my fault, not yours, I just am no good at reading minds...]. Genuine request please spell out where you see any offence either in my statement or the joke?

GS
Last edited by GoSeigen on June 29th, 2022, 3:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

odysseus2000
Lemon Half
Posts: 6324
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 1520 times
Been thanked: 954 times

Re: Passing the Turing test...

#510694

Postby odysseus2000 » June 29th, 2022, 3:35 pm

XFool

No we are not. No more so than, in the 19th century, Singer sewing machines were poised to take over the world. (Albeit, in some ways, they did!)



Well that is a relief, but to calm my worried brain can you please tell me why we are not at this point?

No previous technology has been able to best us at our best games, nor be able to communicate with machines around the world & in orbit.

What prevents AI from doing good or bad things & what prevents a bad person getting in control of AI & using it to do bad things?

Regards,

XFool
The full Lemon
Posts: 12590
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 2600 times

Re: Passing the Turing test...

#510723

Postby XFool » June 29th, 2022, 5:04 pm

odysseus2000 wrote:
XFool wrote:No we are not. No more so than, in the 19th century, Singer sewing machines were poised to take over the world. (Albeit, in some ways, they did!)

Well that is a relief, but to calm my worried brain can you please tell me why we are not at this point?

We are not at THAT point because AI, like LaMDA is no more a being with its own intentions and motivations, than a Singer sewing machine is.

odysseus2000 wrote:No previous technology has been able to best us at our best games, nor be able to communicate with machines around the world & in orbit.

What prevents AI from doing good or bad things & what prevents a bad person getting in control of AI & using it to do bad things?

Ah now, this is another matter. I'm not saying AI might not be dangerous in some circumstances. Just that it is not in itself malevolent. There are still dangers, just not in that way.

Reith Lectures: AI and why people should be scared

BBC News

Prof Stuart Russell, founder of the Center for Human-Compatible Artificial Intelligence, at the University of California, Berkeley, is giving this year's Reith Lectures.

(Not sure I agree with everything he is saying)

odysseus2000
Lemon Half
Posts: 6324
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 1520 times
Been thanked: 954 times

Re: Passing the Turing test...

#510747

Postby odysseus2000 » June 29th, 2022, 5:59 pm

XFool
We are not at THAT point because AI, like LaMDA is no more a being with its own intentions and motivations, than a Singer sewing machine is.


I own two treadle Singer Sewing machines, both beautiful machines, capable of excellent work, but they require me to power and guide them and can do nothing on their own.

By contrast I have a simple neural net robot that can find its way past obstacles.

As of now we don't know what LaMDA is capable of.

Is LaMDA capable of deciding what would be a good thing in terms of its understanding of good and what would be bad in terms of its understanding and is it capable of deciding to do something it classifies as good or bad?

I am 100% sure the Singer Sewing machines I have can not do anything like this.

I am not sure about LaMDA and even if LaMDA can not, the rate of evolution and progress of AI machines suggests that at some point a machine will be able to do this.

I am also unsure how anyone will know if this point has occurred with out giving LaMDA or a successor the opportunity to try which seems like a super dangerous experiment.

Regards,

odysseus2000
Lemon Half
Posts: 6324
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 1520 times
Been thanked: 954 times

Re: Passing the Turing test...

#511151

Postby odysseus2000 » July 1st, 2022, 12:58 pm

Interesting Google engineers 10+ minute Friedman pod cast on whether machines are self aware & similar questions:

https://youtu.be/6HZUn4qpP_A

Regards,

odysseus2000
Lemon Half
Posts: 6324
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 1520 times
Been thanked: 954 times

Re: Passing the Turing test...

#511359

Postby odysseus2000 » July 2nd, 2022, 2:10 pm

Will AI ever win a Nobel Prize (6 minutes):

https://youtu.be/dEOfbt3o4zc

Regards,

XFool
The full Lemon
Posts: 12590
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 2600 times

Re: Passing the Turing test...

#511388

Postby XFool » July 2nd, 2022, 5:17 pm

odysseus2000 wrote:Interesting Google engineers 10+ minute Friedman pod cast on whether machines are self aware & similar questions:

https://youtu.be/6HZUn4qpP_A

"At the moment its more a projection of how our own minds work."

Exactly.


Return to “Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest