Computer passes Turing test to approx. human.

Post links to sites, web pages, videos, etc.
Forum rules
No links to copyrighted materials.

Computer passes Turing test to approx. human.

Postby runstrails » Mon Jun 09, 2014 3:32 pm

SInce there have been a lot of conversations about A.I. and computers simulating humans, I thought I would post this:
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2 ... uring-test

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2 ... uring-test

Personally, I found the 'conversation' pretty hilarious and at a very low level. If the benchmark is that low----then Siri almost approximates it when my daughter is chatting with her ipad!
runstrails
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 2129
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 12:33 am

Re: Computer passes Turing test to approx. human.

Postby smiileyjen101 » Tue Jun 10, 2014 1:34 am

Interesting and I agree with your appraisal RT.
Whatever we program into them will have the limiting factors of the programmer. Interesting how when it didn't understand the question, or have a working answer it deflected, projected or repeated a different question. Is this what we are teaching them (my bad) - programming into them as believable human being samples?

Can't say that it sounds any different to some folks, so maybe it is a success :wink:

When I was studying new media technologies and looking at AI from supporter & detractor perspectives one detractor raised that they might have supra calculus abilities but wouldn't know it was raining and that rain would effect their systems or get themselves out of the rain; so supporters said that was easy to solve they would just build them with fluid 'sensors' and program them in how to react to the 'stimuli'; and build them so they were self mobile, hence they'd be able to get themselves out of the rain.

It all sounded so convoluted just to replicate a shallow version of 'us'. Like us though, they'll never be finished - eternally evolving in response to notions of 'lack'.

In deeper reflection it may become a solidifying of what is deemed by some as 'important' or not in relating. I guess, how can it be anything different?

I think of this after watching an interview with parents of a young man who was killed by a drone attack while he was travelling in a car with suspected 'terrorists'. The drone needed no 'reason' for killing it was just doing what it was programmed to do. There was no judge and jury testing the innocence or guilt of those condemned to death by bombing.

The parents were looking for reasons and information outside of what the instructions to the drone was, and it seems no one thought about that, or has answers for them, the questions were not asked, so they weren't in the brief of instructions.

The drone 'killed them', so no one else seems to have any sense of responsibility, it's at least once removed from all of the players.

1 + 1 = 2 is only relatively all inclusively factual by perspective.
Our rights start deep within our humanity; they end where another's begin~~ SmileyJen
http://www.balancinginfluences.com
User avatar
smiileyjen101
 
Posts: 3688
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:44 am

Re: Computer passes Turing test to approx. human.

Postby ashley72 » Tue Jun 10, 2014 2:25 am

A Turing test will only succeed if the machines conversation/discourse doesn't sound contrived.

The algorithm will need to approach it simultaneously from both bottom-up & top-down. In other words, both feed-forward and back propagation will need to interplay. The algorithm should be able to learn new things as the conversation proceeds as this is how human intelligence works. The learning would need to be unsupervised and be feed into a self organizing map. If your trying to mimic an artificial strange loop... an agent with a self-hood.... called tangled hierarchy consciousness. The algorithm will need to oscillate both upwards or downwards through a hierarchical system, where the algorithm can easily find itself back where it started.

When following a simple loop, you know you will go on a single trip that takes you back to where you started. There's one journey, and one destination. Strange loops are a bit more complicated — they form a kind of set of instructions, an ordered hierarchy, that brings you higher and higher, until you're back at the beginning where you started. :?

Instead of a linear progression (starting point & ending point), these hierarchies balance on each other. Together they encompass a set of instructions that set out two equally valid ways of looking at a situation. The situation cannot be resolved without elevating one view and one part of the set of instructions over the other, but there is no objective way to do that. The game Rock, paper, scissors is example of a very simple tangled hierarchy.

Image

There is no linear progression, no start, no end, no top, no bottom, no up, no down. But nevertheless you still cycle through some formal rule structure... it still works. It has a paradoxical nature because different paired elements have hierarchy "cyclic" rules... Rock beats scissors, scissors beats paper, paper beats rock. Somehow we seem to magically violate or side step each paired hierarchy by being able to cycle around from top to bottom with out there being a clearly defined top or bottom.

Image
User avatar
ashley72
 
Posts: 2533
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:24 am

Re: Computer passes Turing test to approx. human.

Postby smiileyjen101 » Wed Jun 11, 2014 1:27 am

The algorithm will need to oscillate both upwards or downwards through a hierarchical system, where the algorithm can easily find itself back where it started.

I get this Ash, but when the topic 'music' came up for instance .... the response was to denigrate a particular artist, so there appears to be in-built bias (?) How can this be? It's not as if a machine has opinions / tastes in reality.

Maybe it is linked to my thinking on the drone killings - a human being is still responsible for the judgementally biased (not logical based on facts) parts of the programming.

If we were to programme them for instance, with all of the religious teachings of the world, and all of the human rights instruments and say ethics is balancing all of these - the 'logical' resultant behaviours and decisions would not allow them to make the same choices that we, as human beings, have in the name of religions and humanity.

Sadly, already we see them being a little too much like us.
Our rights start deep within our humanity; they end where another's begin~~ SmileyJen
http://www.balancinginfluences.com
User avatar
smiileyjen101
 
Posts: 3688
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:44 am


Return to Recommended Links

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest

cron