Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

shaehl t1_j7lwsyr wrote

Reply to comment by alanskimp in Artificial Consciousness by alanskimp

The Turning Test is useless for determining whether or not something has consciousness.

Imagine that I have spent 100 years compiling responses to every possible sentence someone might say and stored all of these responses in a computer and programmed it to give one of these prewritten responses when it encounters certain sentences.

A simple if X then Y, computer function could then theoretically pass the Turing Test if the prewritten responses were done well.

Many of the Chatbots out now can already pass the Turing Test if you get some lucky outputs. Yet in reality they are no more "conscious" than your calculator. All they are is a word document with a high powered auto-complete function that compares your text to a database of all the text on the internet, and calculates the "best" response.

1

alanskimp OP t1_j7lxnd8 wrote

Turing test is complex enough to tell if it’s human or not but I think something like chatgpt will pass it soon

1

shaehl t1_j7m07nz wrote

Bro if you are going to reply, at least read what you are trying to. Turing Test is in no way capable of determine if anything is human or not, let alone conscious or not.

0

alanskimp OP t1_j7m2652 wrote

Then what is the purpose of it?

2

shaehl t1_j7m4joz wrote

Who cares what its purpose is, the test doesn't work. It could have any purpose and it would be irrelevant if it doesn't achieve that purpose. You talk as if the Turing Test is some kind of immutable law of the universe enshrined beside e=mc^2. In reality it's just a faulty mind game devised by someone who couldn't have begun to dream of the sophistication modern programming would achieve, no one takes it seriously.

For the record though, the Turing Test was a flawed and heavily criticized method of attempting to determine if a machine can think, developed by Alan Turing when computers were the size of entire rooms. Its purpose is irrelevant since the method and premise of the test is flawed and ineffective.

0

alanskimp OP t1_j7m4tvq wrote

Then propose a better method to test for human cognition

1