[runarberg]

I never really understood what made the Turing test so special. On the face of it, it is a rather dumb test. And it was debunked within two decades by the Chinese room thought experiment. And now that we have language models that are obviously not intelligent, it should have been the last nail in the coffin for this test.

Alan Turing was a mathematician not a psychologist, this was his attempt of doing philosophy. And while I applaud brilliant thinkers when they attempt to do philosophy (honestly we need more of that) it is better to leave it to actual philosophers to validate the quality of said philosophy. John Searle was a philosopher which specialized in questions of psychology. And in 1980 he pretty convincingly argued against the Turning test.

[KalMann]

A funny thing is even though we're pretty good at a text-based turing test, and we can have very convincing human generated speech we still don't have something that can pass the audio based turing test. Natural pausing and back and forth gives the AI away.

[runarberg]

And when we pass that we can just add an optical component and judge that the AI has failed because its lack of facial expression gives it away[1], moving the goalpost one communication component at a time. But in any case we can just add the audio (or for that matter facial expression) component to the Chinese room though experiment and the Turing test remains equally invalid.

Although I am scrutinizing Turin’s philosophy and, no doubt, I am personally much worse at doing philosophy then Turing, I firmly hold the belief that we will never be able to judge the intelligence (and much less consciousness) of a non-biological (and probably not even non-animal, nor even non-human) system. The reason, I think, is that these terms are inherently anthropocentric. And when we find a system that rivals human intelligence (or consciousness) we will simply redefine these terms such that the new system isn’t compatible any more. And I think that has already started, and we have done so multiple times in the past (heck we even redefined the term planet when we discovered the Kuiper belt) instead favoring terms like capability when describing non-biological behavior. And honestly I think that is for the better. Intelligence is a troubled term, it is much better to be accurate when we are describing these systems (including human individuals).

---

1: Though in honesty I will be impressed when machine learning algorithms can interoperate and generate appropriate human facial expressions. It won’t convince me of intelligence [and much less consciousness] though.

[photonthug]

Yeah, I mean I hope there are not many people that still think it's a super meaningful test in the sense originally proposed. And yet it is testing something. Even supposing it were completely solved and further supposing the solution is theoretically worthless and only powers next-gen slop-creation, then people would move on to looking for a minimal solution, and perhaps that would start getting interesting. People just like moving towards concrete goals.

In the end though, it's probably about as good as any single kind of test could be, hence TFA looking to combine hundreds across several dozen categories. Language was a decent idea if you're looking for that exemplar of the "AGI-Complete" class for computational complexity, vision was at one point another guess. More than anything else I think we've figured out in recent years that it's going to be hard to find a problem-criteria that's clean and simple, much less a solution that is