The credibility of the Turing test version is disputed

"Tempest" has prompted the world of technology to announce the publication by the University of Reading about passing the "Test Turing" by "Eugene Goostman» – of a proτος το οποίο, όπως ανακοινώθηκε το σαββατοκύριακο, πέρασε για «πρώτη φορά» το διάσημο τεστ, το οποίο θεωρείται ότι αποτελεί ορόσημο/ κριτήριο για το πότε μία μηχανή μπορεί να θεωρηθεί «σκεπτόμενη».
Eugene Goostman PC fool man and passes the Turing test

In a particularly "acidic" publication by Techdirt, it is reported that "Eugene Goostman" by Vladimir Veselov and Eugene Démchenko, awarded at an event organized by the University at the Royal Society in London, was not a "supercomputer" but a chatbot script specifically designed to mimic human conversation, so it's not an "artificial intelligence."

It is also claimed that other such chatbots have been shown to pass the "Turing test" (where a computer "tricks" them συνομιλητές τους, κάνοντάς τους να νομίζουν ότι έχουν απέναντί τους άνθρωπο και όχι υπολογιστή), και ότι η «επιτυχία» οφείλεται σε «παραπλάνηση» των κανόνων (το γεγονός ότι παρίστανε ένα 13χρονο αγόρι από την somehow "covered" some strange answers).

Also, in this issue, the credibility of one of the organizers, Kevin Worwick of Reading University, is being questioned, who is accused of repeated misleading claims.

According to a Guardian article, Steven Harnad, a professor at the University of Quebec (Montreal), argued that whatever happened to the Royal Society did not constitute a "passage" of the Turing test. "We have not passed the Turing test. We have not even come close. "

"Turing's thought was that the best way to explain how the mind works is to design a system that can do what the mind can do. This includes all our talk capabilities, as well as the sensations and perceptions ... not for five minutes, but for a lifetime. "

According to her report , many experts in the field of artificial intelligence question the validity of the "version" of the Turing test used by the University of Reading.

Gary Markus, a professor at New York University, talked about something far from real intelligence, while Hugh Lembert, the creator of a similar contest, says the time frame for discussion was too small to make a right decision. For his part, Douglas Lenat, Cycorp's Artificial Intelligence Investigator and Chief Executive Officer, commented that "if I teach my parrot to say a lot, answering my words, she may be lovable, but not intelligent."

However, John Denning, who worked with Veselov, speaking to the Guardian supported the program, noting that "I think we passed 'a' Turing test, but I don't know if it was 'the' Turing test. Is Eugene smarter than a person? No. You're not going to put your life in the hands of a 13-year-old who makes jokes and has a weird sense of humor."

Also, in a statement to PC World, Columbia University professor Tony Tzampara welcomed the achievement, noting that from the moment of its conception, the notion of artificial intelligence is determined by one milestone after another, "whether he is playing chess or whether learns to draw up proposals. "

"We have said over and over again that 'once a computer can do this, we will have created intelligence.' However, every time we reach a milestone, we stand back and say 'this is still not AI' and raise the bar even higher. We still have a lot to do and learn about how to make computers intelligent and how our brains work."

It is noted that the original post by the University of Reading on Dia modified accordingly so that Eugene is characterized as a computer program rather than a "supercomputer". It also details the nature of the competition tests as performed at the Royal Society. The Best Technology Site in Greecefgns

Subscribe to Blog by Email

Subscribe to this blog and receive of new posts by email.

Written by giorgos

George still wonders what he's doing here ...

Leave a reply

Your email address is not published. Required fields are mentioned with *

Your message will not be published if:
1. Contains insulting, defamatory, racist, offensive or inappropriate comments.
2. Causes harm to minors.
3. It interferes with the privacy and individual and social rights of other users.
4. Advertises products or services or websites.
5. Contains personal information (address, phone, etc.).