this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2025
311 points (95.1% liked)

Technology

85333 readers
4272 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 news or articles.
  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, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
311
The Turing Test, enshrined by the public and media as THE test of machine intelligence, really isn't. (www.thenewatlantis.com)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by LovableSidekick@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
60 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
[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Ran across this comment while revisiting my old posts. I never heard of the Chinese room argument about machine intelligence, but I think there's a much simpler test. If you come across a very intelligent statement carved into a stone wall, it probably doesn't mean the wall is intelligent, based on what we know about stone. It doesn't mean whoever carved it was intelligent, because a highly skilled carver could carve somebody else's words without being very smart. Likewise, computer output that seems intelligent can't be taken by itself as proof of anything.