[ExI] Off Topic: Turing Test -- ai class at stanford
atymes at gmail.com
Tue Aug 30 06:48:48 UTC 2011
That's why I said "so far as there is one". OTOH, it was given as an example
of something that, if imitated, would seem to leave no further thing that humans
could point to as "intelligence" - because, if there was, then people could talk
about it, but computers wouldn't be able to, thus giving a way to distinguish
computers from humans via communication, thus they do not in fact pass the
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 11:08 PM, G. Livick <glivick at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> The Turing Test only described a means for measuring how well a computer
> dedicated to that specific task could "imitate" human verbal communication.
> Caution in tossing around buzz words and buzz phrases without first
> researching their true meaning and accuracy is not infrequently advisable.
> On 8/29/2011 5:52 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Mike Dougherty<msd001 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I have no doubt your approach to iteratively building and tweaking the
>>> world's most complicated clockwork automaton will yield a machine
>>> surprisingly adept at acting like a human (even surpassing human
>>> ability) - but where/when do you call it a person and grant it all the
>>> rights that people currently hold?
>> The current standard, so far as there is one, is when it passes the
>> Turing Test.
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
More information about the extropy-chat