You have to pay eternal attention to developments that could become a 10X factor in your business - Andy Grove - Only the Paranoid Survive
|
|
|
Blue Gene might manage Turing test
BOFFINS at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute think they have managed to get Biggish Blue's Blue Gene supercomputer close to passing the Turing test.
For those who came in late, the Turing Test is one of the goals of artificial intelligence and it basically is getting a computer to fool people that it is human.
The boffins want to link their software with a multimedia group who are designing a holodeck much like Star Trek.
The big idea is to build a synthetic character which can operate in the holodeck.
Currently top boffin Selmer Bringsjord, head of Rensselaer's Cognitive Science Department and leader of the research project is stuffing the AI character with facts about its 'history' including family trivia and personal beliefs.
The data has come from a graduate student who is telling everything about himself to build the database. µ
L'INQ
EETIMES
Share this:
Share
When they get a computer that can perform the duties of ‘Stepford Wife’, look like Catherine Ross in the movie, and fool my ass, now you might be on to something!

Call it ‘The Sparks Test'

SPARKS
"So until we solve the Entscheidungsproblem, we cannot create a candidate A.I. which could pass the Turing Test."

techguy,

Bletchley Boffins solved that Enigma a while back. Things have moved on apace since those Early Crazy Days.

If you work in the Field of Virtualisation, you are always working with AI .......and CyberIntelAIgents/NIRobotIQs [Network InterNetworking Robot IQs/ICQs]

The Secret is to make IT Reality...... and that is Best Done by Selfless Sharing.
...if we can't build an artificial intelligence smart enough to pass for human, is it because we humans are too smart, or is it because we're not smart enough?
I agree. I believe you are getting into the domain of intelligent design for teleological argument, such as proposed by British empiricists among whom were Locke and Hume. It can only be attributable to human error. I, on the other hand, am a dolt from Gullible's Travels. Surely a Turing Test could've fooled me. But a Shroud of Turing Test, now that would take it to a Hole Nutha Level. I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that...
Try learning some science, then some computer science, and yyou might be allowed to type in your own questions.
It is necessary to first define intelligence and specifically "artificial" intelligence before it is possible to determine whether a candidate A.I. is truly intelligent, and also thereby properly define the Turing Test. 

I think we currently lack the capability to properly express our intentions to a machine to create a candidate A.I. that could pass a Turing Test. This is both a syntactical problem, in that we lack the programming language that would be as flexible, robust, and intuitive enough for any attempting to create a candidate A.I. to actually do so, and that we as finite beings also may just simply inherently lack the capability not only to design such a programming language, but also to design an A.I. that could pass a Turing Test. 

Some may say this is simply a matter of intelligence and in order to reach this level of intellect we simply need to evolve. I believe in order to achieve this we would need to reach another level of consciousness or become "Super-Aware". In order for humans to accomplish such a feat, we would have to be able to solve the “Entscheidungsproblem.” This actually parallels the barrier to passing the Turing Test in that any A.I. which could actually pass a Turing Test would itself need to be Super-Aware and solve the Entscheidungsproblem to pass the Test!

So until we solve the Entscheidungsproblem, we cannot create a candidate A.I. which could pass the Turing Test.
These AI people are delusional. All they are developing is an interactive tape recorder. Just because Turing made an observation that people are gullible does not mean that an Artificial Intelligence is intelligent.

Deceiving people is not the measure of scientific achievement. 

And it is no MOORE of a law than other popular IT observations.
haha just a tape recorder a what do u think humans are how did u learn how to talk some one said the word and u repeat that word or u memorize a set of rules of a launge like puncuation and spelling(which i suck at) or how a word is spell pr u memorize how to do math and how do we figure out new stuf? try all the possibilities. give this machine 15 years of constent data imput and well see whos the tape recorder

AT adds: You certainly do suck at spolling adn punktiaytion.
I believe WE are interactive tape recorders. zombies really.

As for Entscheidungsproblem, why would we need to solve that first? I can't tell if most math statements are true, and I'm ... uhhh well me. You know... one of those human things.... right? I think?
Sod the AI, there are people working on a holodeck?!?

I'd be happy with PC game level AI if I could jump into the game itself. Mouse/keyboards/joypads just dont cut it.
If it's just an "interactive tape recorder", it should be easy to spot as fake then, right?

...

But what if even _you_ couldn't?