this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2025
307 points (94.8% liked)

Technology

61263 readers
3604 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
307
The Turing Test, enshrined by the public and media as THE test of machine intelligence, really isn't. (www.thenewatlantis.com)
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
64 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Computer pioneer Alan Turing's remarks in 1950 on the question, "Can machines think?" were misquoted, misinterpreted and morphed into the so-called "Turing Test". The modern version says if you can't tell the difference between communicating with a machine and a human, the machine is intelligent. What Turing actually said was that by the year 2000 people would be using words like "thinking" and "intelligent" to describe computers, because interacting with them would be so similar to interacting with people. Computer scientists do not sit down and say alrighty, let's put this new software to the Turing Test - by Grabthar's Hammer, it passed! We've achieved Artificial Intelligence!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] deranger 78 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (25 children)

I think the Chinese room argument published in 1980 gives a pretty convincing reason why the Turing test doesn't demonstrate intelligence.

The thought experiment starts by placing a computer that can perfectly converse in Chinese in one room, and a human that only knows English in another, with a door separating them. Chinese characters are written and placed on a piece of paper underneath the door, and the computer can reply fluently, slipping the reply underneath the door. The human is then given English instructions which replicate the instructions and function of the computer program to converse in Chinese. The human follows the instructions and the two rooms can perfectly communicate in Chinese, but the human still does not actually understand the characters, merely following instructions to converse. Searle states that both the computer and human are doing identical tasks, following instructions without truly understanding or "thinking".

Searle asserts that there is no essential difference between the roles of the computer and the human in the experiment. Each simply follows a program, step-by-step, producing behavior that makes them appear to understand. However, the human would not be able to understand the conversation. Therefore, he argues, it follows that the computer would not be able to understand the conversation either.

[–] eggymachus 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of levels. Neither the computer nor the human understands Chinese. Both the programs do, however.

[–] taladar 22 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

The programs don't really understand Chinese either. They are just filled with an understanding that is provided to them up-front. I mean as in they do not derive that understanding from something they perceive where there was no understanding before, they don't draw conclusions, don't understand words from context,.... the way an intelligent being would learn a language.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

Programs clearly understand words from context. Try making it do translation tasks, it can properly translate "tear" to either 泪水 (tears from crying) or 撕破 (to rend) based on context

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

Nothing in the thought experiment says that the program doesn't behave that way. If the program really seems like it understands language to an outside observer, you would assume it did learn language that way.

[–] mindbleach 1 points 2 weeks ago

Understanding is demonstrable, and Searle asserts that the book demonstrates it. He just tricked himself into believing the meatbag doing the book's bidding should also know what's going on. Like if you're not following along while blindly obeying instructions, the same result wouldn't count.

[–] eggymachus 1 points 2 weeks ago

Others have provided better answers than mine, pointing out that the Chinese room argument only makes sense if your premise is that a “program” is qualitatively different from what goes on in a human brain/mind.

load more comments (23 replies)