36
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] bitofhope@awful.systems 9 points 8 months ago

I agree, except with the first sentence.

  1. I don't think a computer program has passed the Turing test without interpreting the rules in a very lax way and heavily stacking the deck in the bot's favor.
  2. I'd be impressed if a machine does something hard even if the machine is specifically designed to do that. Something like proving the Riemann hypothesis or actually passing an honest version of Turing test.
[-] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago

The Turing test doesn't say any of that. Which is why it was first passed in the 60s, and is a bad test.

[-] bitofhope@awful.systems 1 points 4 months ago

Any of… what?

Yea I don't think the Turing test is that great for establishing genuine artificial intelligence, but I also maintain that current state of the art doesn't even pass the Turing test to an intellectually honest standard and certainly didn't in the 60s.

this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2024
36 points (100.0% liked)

TechTakes

1401 readers
201 users here now

Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.

This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.

For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS