this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2025
310 points (95.1% liked)

Technology

61227 readers
4685 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
310
The Turing Test, enshrined by the public and media as THE test of machine intelligence, really isn't. (www.thenewatlantis.com)
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by LovableSidekick@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
59 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Computer pioneer Alan Turing's remarks in 1950 on the question, "Can machines think?" were misquoted, misinterpreted and morphed into the so-called "Turing Test". The modern version says if you can't tell the difference between communicating with a machine and a human, the machine is intelligent. What Turing actually said was that by the year 2000 people would be using words like "thinking" and "intelligent" to describe computers, because interacting with them would be so similar to interacting with people. Computer scientists do not sit down and say alrighty, let's put this new software to the Turing Test - by Grabthar's Hammer, it passed! We've achieved Artificial Intelligence!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 79 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (23 children)

I think the Chinese room argument published in 1980 gives a pretty convincing reason why the Turing test doesn't demonstrate intelligence.

The thought experiment starts by placing a computer that can perfectly converse in Chinese in one room, and a human that only knows English in another, with a door separating them. Chinese characters are written and placed on a piece of paper underneath the door, and the computer can reply fluently, slipping the reply underneath the door. The human is then given English instructions which replicate the instructions and function of the computer program to converse in Chinese. The human follows the instructions and the two rooms can perfectly communicate in Chinese, but the human still does not actually understand the characters, merely following instructions to converse. Searle states that both the computer and human are doing identical tasks, following instructions without truly understanding or "thinking".

Searle asserts that there is no essential difference between the roles of the computer and the human in the experiment. Each simply follows a program, step-by-step, producing behavior that makes them appear to understand. However, the human would not be able to understand the conversation. Therefore, he argues, it follows that the computer would not be able to understand the conversation either.

[–] eggymachus@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

That just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of levels. Neither the computer nor the human understands Chinese. Both the programs do, however.

[–] taladar@sh.itjust.works 22 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

The programs don't really understand Chinese either. They are just filled with an understanding that is provided to them up-front. I mean as in they do not derive that understanding from something they perceive where there was no understanding before, they don't draw conclusions, don't understand words from context,.... the way an intelligent being would learn a language.

[–] matjoeman@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Nothing in the thought experiment says that the program doesn't behave that way. If the program really seems like it understands language to an outside observer, you would assume it did learn language that way.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (20 replies)