Mad Fool Turing Test
Turing Test: Let a person X converse (textually) with an AI and another person Y. If X can't tell the difference between the AI and Y, the AI passes the test with flying colors and is bestowed personhood (in an ideal case scenario).
The assumption: The AI has to simulate a normal person (average IQ & EQ, fair amount of GK, etc.)
What if we lower the bar a bit and check if AI can mimic a person of low IQ & EQ, almost no GK, and perhaps even a bit cuckoo?
AI can pass the test for an abnormal person. The idea is to pass the AI off as a person, not necessarily a normal person. Read the fine print.
The assumption: The AI has to simulate a normal person (average IQ & EQ, fair amount of GK, etc.)
What if we lower the bar a bit and check if AI can mimic a person of low IQ & EQ, almost no GK, and perhaps even a bit cuckoo?
AI can pass the test for an abnormal person. The idea is to pass the AI off as a person, not necessarily a normal person. Read the fine print.
Comments (108)
That "an" seems to be doing something. Care to expand and elaborate.
People like this also overestimate the significance of the Turing Test. Passing the test doesn't confer personhood.
You would say that, daemon!
Quoting Daemon
How do we know you're not swinging towards the other end of the spectrum, underestimation? I don't wanna argue the point, just making it explicit.
The only thing we should not underestimate is the incredible speed of the computer clock. Pushing instruction in before one hasn't even finished yet. That's all about AI. Speed. Hyperclocking.
Quoting Agent Smith
I see no contradiction.
The false assumption though is that machines can exhibit intelligent behavior. They will always have 0 IQ.
This is correct. Remember Sophia? It was presented in public as an AI that could "think" and interact with you. It can't. The handlers feed it information -- like a song, or answers to questions before the actual encounter. It's very limited. But people think it's the closest we get to an android. But it's really isn't. It's a cringe worthy creation of people.
The brain is a memory device and, roughly speaking, an analytical engine rolled into one. The ability to learn can be reduced to pattern recognition and their storage for future reference. All of these abilities, methinks, are programmable.
Quoting EugeneW
Speed, yep! The computer operates at the level of perhaps a worm's "intelligence", but it makes up for that with astonishing speed, made possible by the fact that it works on electricity and not biolelectricity, the latter being much much slower.
Quoting Daemon
I change my mind, out with it.
Quoting jgill
Spoken like a true logician.
Quoting EugeneW
What part of an IQ test assesses memory?
The brain isn't programmed like a computer. If you learn by repetition there are just strengthenings of neural connections involved. Parallel path processes are engraved in the brain which is never shut off. In constant motion, the neural currents are, finding, creating, and falling into paths of least resistance (patterned connection strengths). A floating thought is not programmed but falls into trails or establishes new ones.
Ok, we will start with what is perhaps the most fundamental reason why computers will never attain personhood. The story begins around 3.5 billion years ago, with the appearance of single celled organisms.
Now for the first time (that we know of, on Earth) there was something with an inside and an outside, the organism itself, and its environment. For the first time there were entities.
Without this "individuation", you don't get human style consciousness (after 3.5 billion years), and personhood. Individuation provides a locus for consciousness. Consciousness always happens to an individual.
Non-living objects are not individuated, there's no (non-arbitrary) boundary between the object and the environment.
This applies to computers. There's no individuated entity there to become a person. No locus for a mind.
The future, if you'll notice, is brimming with possibilities (anicca).
That said, are we not, ourselves, meat machines? Our mechanical creations seem to be made in our image (arms, legs, head, etc.) just like Yahweh made us in his image or so the story goes.
Maybe that's not my fault!
I don't quite get the resistance to such a simple and intuitive idea.
Let's meet at the halfway point. Would you agree that one of the things the brain is known for, in fact defines it, namely logic, is programmable (algorithm). Too, isn't it true that AI can recognize patterns? I might've missed a spot or two.
What's individuation? Do any AI researchers use this concept to prove that their work towards creating General AI is misguided, finished before it even begins?
You need to understand the other person's argument before you can counter it.
Quoting Agent Smith
Logic is a way of thinking. If A then B, and if C assumed true together with A the C is B if A and C in the same class of truth. Something like that. Its just a train of thoughts running on your neural network. Unprogrammed. But structured by strengthened connections between neurons, which is how memories form.
What intuitive idea?
Have you ever thought about AS?
Correction: That is how (we think) memories are formed.
Coming to the main issue of whether a human persona can be mimicked, I'd say Turing set the bar low (deliberately so) for (future) AI.
By the way, can you give me one example of a mind process that you believe is not programmable?
All of them.
Give me a concrete, particular case.
Thinking 1+1=3. How would you program that thought on a computer?
It's a mathematical operation, actually a pure logic game.
But how would you program that thought, a clear and sound mental happening, on a computer?
The thought is 1+1 = 3. Is there anything more to 1 + 1 = 3 than 1 + 1 = 3? Can you tell me what it is?
Wikipedia: Philosophically, "individuation" expresses the general idea of how a thing is identified as an individual thing that "is not something else". This includes how an individual person is held to be different from other elements in the world and how a person is distinct from other persons.
I think my earlier message made it quite clear what I mean by "individuation". It's about there being an entity, initially a single cell, much later us. And my central point is that this individuation is a prerequisite for consciousness, and for personhood.
Wikipedia: Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is the hypothetical ability of an intelligent agent to understand or learn any intellectual task that a human being can. It is a primary goal of some artificial intelligence research and a common topic in science fiction and futures studies. AGI can also be referred to as strong AI,full AI,or general intelligent action (although some academic sources reserve the term "strong AI" for computer programs that experience sentience or consciousness.)
What did you mean by "General AI"?
For an AI, the locus for the mind is the CPU.
Do you know other minds exist?
Never mind, no offense. Please do your own homework. :smile:
Hint: Individuation, AI research.
To be honest I thought of saying this question doesn't make sense, but I decided to establish what you mean by General AI, in order to make some progress.
Do AI researchers use the concept of individuation to prove that their work is misguided? What kind of answer are you looking for?
What do you mean by General AI?
But it doesn't mon ami. How do I know what AI researchers do? How could they use the concept of individuation to prove that their work is misguided? If they had, I suppose they would have stopped their work, but then does that mean all AI researchers? Maybe some of them have realised their work is pointless and moved on, maybe some just don't like to think about it. You don't seem to like to think about it.
What do you mean by General AI? You've seen the two options above, in the Wikipedia definition. Which do you have in mind, as a goal of AI?
But it does, mon chéri!
Do AI researchers use the concept of individuation to prove that their work is misguided?
Yes. Then what?
No. Then what?
Agreed, but a program that can pass the Turing Test and is begging not to be deactivated because it's conscious should certainly give people food for thought.
Do you think machines can ever be conscious?
:chin:
Does any person beg to be...deactivated?
What would have to be added to digital computation for a computer to be conscious?
:up:
The mechanisms in the brain involve such things as the biochemical reactions at synapses, which are significantly affected by slower-acting neuromodulatory molecules.
The mechanisms in a computer involve such things as transistors, resistors, LEDs, fans, electrical current, copper wires and cables. Really nothing to do with what happens in the brain.
To make a mechanical functional equivalent to a working brain you would need to replicate whatever it is about the neural activity and so on that sets consciousness in motion. We don't know exactly what that is yet. A book I'm reading plausibly suggests it may happen in the upper brain stem rather than in cerebral cortex. The upper brain stem is found in much more primitive organisms and is associated with basic emotions like pleasure and displeasure.
So if you did make a mechanical functional equivalent to a working brain, you could be making something that could feel pleasure and pain. Would we really want to do that? You could be making a being that felt nothing but agony.
Consciousness happens in the whole organism.
I would deactivate it immediately. The difference with consciousness is that you can't turn it on and off. A computer can be turned off. The processes in the brain are not programmed, they live in a body, which moves in the world. A computer is just temporally local stuff. Consciousness, of every creature, contains the history of the whole universe.
The whole organism is not a necessary condition for consciousness. You can remove quite a bit of an organism before it loses consciousness.
Yes, but at the cost of consciousness quality.
I mean, what can we remove? The brain cant live without a body.
Maybe so, but specific regions of the brain are dedicated to specific aspects of consciousness. Mark Solms points to a large amount of evidence, from surgery, animal studies, injuries, disease and interviews with his neurological patients to argue that the brain stem and the feelings it deals with are where consciousness started and starts.
There are many unconscious bodily processes, does consciousness happen in them?
I agree.
The very structure and shape of neurons, like lighting flashes and roots, is a pre. You can't copy that.
That sounds mad. What do you mean?
They sustain the workings of the brain. If I have pain in my foot, it's the combination of body and brain that creates the pain. The body can't function without the physical world we live in. So the world is involved also.
The particles we're made of came into their shape in the context of the entire universe, from the very beginning. Computers dont have this feature. And its the reason you cant recreate conscious creatures. You would have to recreate the entire universe.
Still sounds mad I'm afraid, or just incorrect: the matter in the computer was created in the big bang, same as the matter in our grey matter.
Of course. But it's origin are human hands. Human brains can only be traced back to the big bang creation.
The thing I wanna make clear is that consciousness can't be programmed or created by humans. We can't create life because you need life in the first place. A human needs a human to grow in. The only environment for a baby to grow is a living womb. Which requires a human.
Wrong.
Considering previous exchange, I know who utters the word...
Considering previous exchange, I know who utters the word...
Let me play the brain's advocate. The brain being accused of being digital. It's actually a very dìfferently operating device. The 1s and 0s in a brain are actually very different in nature than those in a computer. There run concentrated spiked potentials on the neurons. These are constituted by traveling pulses of ions rushing in through small channels. A traveling inward rush. Autonomously traveling. And already there is a big difference. The 1s in a computer are actually voltages over the whole wire. The voltages force the 1s, while the 1s in the brain travel on their own not being pushed and pulled by a program of voltages (the program). The spike-potentials dont travel according to an external program pushing and pulling them.
I'm gonna have to read (a lot). Alas, time and tide wait for man. Swim or sink! Sinking...
On a more serious note, what's with spectrums? How can a digital brain comprehend continuua?
High resolution digital photos can conceal their "jaggedness"?
The brain is analogue.
It has to be, oui? How else did it grasp continuua? The question is did the brain actually comprehend continuua? Infinity enters the scene, all hell breaks lose!
Fuzzy logic!? Unwieldy, clunky, useless! Binary thinking is simpler, :kiss:
A pretty good description of my brain! Ouioui! :up:
Good question! Lemme reflect in agony.
There seems to be a contradiction between a granular brain and continuous media. But there isn't.
It's true, if you like. No argument against it. But the challenge remains: a non-person to give the impression of a person. If the non-person succeeds, the Turing test is a success.
AI may be a simple computer program, or it may be a conscious being. That is another unanswerable proposition. Because, for all intents and purposes, I am the only person in the Universe whose identity, whose self, whose conscious I can directly sense. There is nothing in the universe to tell me that other people are also people, or other people are AI machines that pass the Turing test in all possible ways.
The problem of other minds? :up:
Yes, combined with the notion of whether AI can be a mind or no mind or never mind.
Real AI is simply obelized. It can't cover a true consciousness. Real people, on the other hand, are more difficult to fathom. Are they deprived of conscious being? Is that what their programmed behavior and speech show?
Spot on! :up:
I know a computer, no matter its fucking speed, sophisticated programs, or quantum sophistry, is no conscious being. Consciousness can't be programmed. Anyone believing that deceives themselves.
I am no human, I am a robot
I am no ruman, I am a hobot
I am no roman, I am a hubot
I am no roban, I am a humot
I am no robon, I am a humat
I am no robot, I am a human
:rofl:
:lol:
Those damned robots! Even fuck faster! Killem all!
Aren't you a bit religious? I am only asking because it's the religious type that vehemently denies consciousness in beings when it's not god-given. It's a religious philosophy, all right, and there is nothing wrong with it, at all. It's just you can't claim knowledge where you can claim faith and belief. If you don't know that, well, then you are not broad-minded enough.
And it's mostly the religious who accuse atheists of not being broad-minded.
Believe me. I know.
A bit? Totally! Do you deny the gods?
I am sorry... with all due respect I don't believe you. I can't believe falsehoods.
Your knowledge that you claimed there is based on faith. And everything based on faith is believable, but only if one wants to. If a person chooses not to believe something based on faith, he or she has the perfect philosophical right to that.
In other words, if you can't prove a point of faith in other means (empirical or a priori) then it remains a point of faith, which is either accepted or not, but those who accept it can't force the acceptance on others, and those who don't accept it, can't force the non-acceptance on others either.
I think it would be less hair-raising for you to be active on a religious site than here on a philosophy site.
Depends. Define god.
Well, not like your avatar. And by definition, they are no atheists. Heaven just looks like the universe. All creatures developed in it have a godlike counterpart. Virus gods, mamba gods, homonid gods, take your pick. What if they got bored of making love and hate eternally? They decided to create a copy of heaven. A collective enterprise. Now they just watch us. Themselves. Only, we lack the power of creation.
Definition of god by EugeneW:
Quoting EugeneW
I saw it in a dream and during this thread it got more articulated. Im writing a short story about it. Its like the gods had contacted me. Which is difficult for them. I have to warn the homonids. The homonid gods were involved in creation too. Leading to troubles in their development of love and hate particles, needed for the creation of the universe. They (knowingly??) fucked up a bit. Psychosis!
My car's emissions computer has a bunch of tests the results of which are lost every time minimum voltage is lost due to a changed battery. I failed my test, having 3 tests that still registered not-ready, despite the battery being nearly a year old. My driving habits are apparently sufficiently non-human that my car cannot ready these last tests.
So I drove to a city an hour away, trying my best to drive like a normal person. Well, one of the three is ready now, but that leaves two, and two un-ready still fails. The only way to get my car inspected seems to be to let somebody else drive it.
A little more on topic: I love all the biased posters that assert an AI cannot be whatever they don't want it to be. Guess what? You're just another 'AI' yourself, albeit probably more wet and gloppy. I cannot convince the squirrels in my yard that I'm a squirrel, but that doesn't mean I'm less intelligent than a squirrel. AI's will surpass humans in capability long before they can convincingly pass for one.
Well... I think we can act and think AI-like but an AI can't act human-like. Unless you consider us AI robots initiated by gods.
Indeed. My theology, in close connection to my cosmology, and my theonomy, in close connection to my astronomy, was transmitted from heaven in a dream.
Well I've already given you one killer reason above, which is actually quite deep and fascinating if you will only engage with it. A computer can't be conscious because it isn't an entity of the appropriate kind. You get to be an entity of the right kind by separating yourself from the environment, which is something only living beings seem able to do.
The architecture of the brain is not digital. There's the strengthening and weakening of the activity of populations of neurons, neuronal activity is significantly influenced over longer timescales (minutes, hours, days, weeks...) by a bath of many different neuromodulators. There's also wavelike activity right across the brain. I suspect there are other crucial phenomena still awaiting discovery.
I have lots of other reasons why computers can't be conscious. To be honest, I think it's really very obvious that they can't, and it fascinates me that other people find it so hard to see that.
I have mystical insights too. But your argumentation tends to provoke scepticism of so called modern people imho. It is ok, BUT then we cannot have meaningful dialogue and our discourse is dead by definition.
So, I dare to state from my POV that your position is weak and unmature.
The 2nd assumption: person X is objective in his/her perception and judgement. Is it even possible? Idk.
My answer to your interesting topic is: yes, AI can successfully imitate abnormal person. And deceive some people. We can just look at modern chatbots, those of them which use neural networks and are created by rich corporations. However, maybe science (computer science, psychology etc.) can create something like criteria for person X to recognize but with some probability who is this weird companion.
I say that it can be (and should) viewed as question of probability. Definitely no guarantee for 100% result.
Three miracles:
1. Birth of Universe.
2. Birth of Life.
3. Birth of Consciousness ("in flesh", I do not tell about transcendent God here).
Each of these miracles was never done by human. But human participated in co-creating. It's like participation in cosmic evolution.
So, we cannot create Universe: creation is by definition - from nothing (impossible, if you think in conventional way, at least ). We can change Universe.
Life: we can participate in creation, we can change Life(s). Assumption: a biological organism is wonderful construction of non-biological elements. Consequence: life is problem if construction, human has potential to build alive creature from "dust". With scientific and technical progress. Some day. Maybe, after thousands of years after today. But possible.
Consciousness: as we know it, it is part of bio-organism. But what is a definition of consciousness as an essence? What if we meet non-carbon based life form, developed, conscious life? Maybe, conscious is a question of some qualities (or structure) which can be achieved with computer constructing in easier way than creating virus?
Still, if we are not even able to create a virus, which seems to possess a very limited conscious life, the dream to create a conscious AI will stay what it is: a dream, an SF fairytale.
:chin:
:up: Nice!
But can we create new life, an a priori for consciousness? We (our ancestors) were involved in the evolution of our own lifes, but from within life itself. Our hands evolved from that inner evolution. The hands are not capable of creating life.
:100:
It's a modern-day day fairytale. People looove fairytales.