h a l f b a k e r yLeft for Bread
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Are We Robots?
Website for writing your way out of a user controlled turing test of sorts. | |
Every once in a while, I think it's healthy to stand back and make sure you know whats going on around you. For me, it usually requires a thorough inspection of the brains of my cohorts. In my imagination, of course! Haha... well. At any rate, where was I...Ok: I wonder if it's possible to use a sophistication
of speech and storytelling, or individual knowledge bases, that are simply brought from our own minds... no Searching. No Research on your topic whatsoever. [edit after //anno::MaxwellBuchannan{1}::// begin] You are given your topic randomly, and your writing on this topic is put up for voting on a level of roboticism.[end edit]
Then we bring in the machines! And it's then all the users' and viewers' jobs to figure out who's the robots and who's not. It's a site much like this one and your only goal is to prove you're not a robot. We use our own abilities to convey consciousness to combat the ability for AI to mimic these sophistications. We must beat them. I think the machines have to get voted human only 30 percent of the time for them to win... Get votes and vote! Are you a robot?
Human fails Turing test
http://www.newscien...ls-turing-test.html
[MaxwellBuchanan, Jan 10 2010]
some predictions turing made for future machine intelligence, and human 'attitudes' toward it.
http://www.cogs.sus...users/blayw/tt.html
[daseva, Jan 10 2010]
Shakespeare enthusiast Cynthia Clay thought to be a computer by 3 out of 10 judges.
http://www.thenewat...ith-the-turing-test
The incident Aristotle referred to, I think. [jutta, Jan 12 2010]
ELIZA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA
For those not as astute as pertinax! [DrBob, Jan 12 2010]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
I got lost at " I wonder if it's possible to use a sophistication
of speech and storytelling, or individual knowledge bases,
that are simply brought from our own minds...". |
|
| |
Did we forget to bring content? |
|
| |
Yes, I'm having trouble with the idea. I just want human votes, man. And yes, you can use your memory. Machines will feign memory. Or not? |
|
| |
It's a really just a question of whether the where is the same
as the why. |
|
| |
//We use our own abilities to convey consciousness to combat the ability for AI to mimic these sophistications. // |
|
| |
You mean "We make it easier for AI by providing extensive data illustrating what humans look like when trying prove they're not machines; the machines can then pastiche this data and thereby prove they're not machines". |
|
| |
It's the human hand, with it's embroidery, piano
playing and braille reading versus the machines
technological mimicry. One is born from multitasking
and the other from Occam's razor. Both are needed. |
|
| |
Robotics is just another unique line of evolution for
the outward advance of the human race. Embrace
machine vote a little bit. |
|
| |
[davesa] Look up "Turing test" for more information
on detecting whether someone passes for being
human. At one such test a human actually failed, his
spelling and grammar was too accurate apparently! |
|
| |
Interesting! Do you have a reference for that? |
|
| |
[Later: Looks like it was *her* spelling and grammar, and I find no mention of that being the problem - rather, the depth and degree of detail of her knowledge about Shakespeare exceeded the judges' expectation, at least in one case. But it's still a very interesting case and an interesting piece about the Loebner prize as well - thanks!] |
|
| |
// Embrace machine vote a little bit. // |
|
| |
And we will embrace you in return. Join us ... you'll wonder why you ever hesitated ... |
|
| |
//a reference for that?// I found some links by searching for
"human fails Turing test" (with quotes). One link posted
above. |
|
| |
These moral and social dimensions to the ascription of intelligence are also covered by Computing Machinery and Intelligence. Turing wanted to ask (although he obviously could not answer), 'What would be the human reaction to the sort of machine that could succeed in the imitation game?'. If, as Turing clearly believed, digital computers could, by the end of the century, succeed in deceiving an interrogator 30 percent of the time, how would we describe such a feat? This is not primarily a technical or philosophical question, but rather a question about human attitudes. As Turing himself observed, the meaning of words such 'thinking' can change with changing patterns of usage. Although sampling human attitudes is rejected as a method of answering the question 'Can a machine think?' in the first paragraph of Computing Machinery and Intelligence, we can read the entire paper as primarily concerned with human attitudes. The contrivance of the imitation game was intended to show the importance of human attitudes, not to be an operational definition of intelligence. " |
|
| |
about 2/3rds down <linky>. |
|
| |
soon to be heard in Customer Service calls...
"yes thankyou, can I talk with a machine please ?" |
|
| |
I tried to find a link for the specific example I
mentioned but I failed so here are the salient
details that I recall. |
|
| |
It was an early test, before the chatbots designers
had learnt to programme them to misspell
convincing, and this person was proper Oxbridge
scholar who was as adroit with a keyboard as he
was with the English language. I think his subject
was Shakespeare. |
|
| |
The report I read mentioned his name and that he
was quite upset by being judged a programme! |
|
| |
This is very interesting. Please tell me more. |
|
| |
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." |
|
| |
Also, [DrBob]'s anno is one of the things that chatterbots say. In fact, I think it originates with ELIZA, the mother of all such bots. |
|
| |
[MaxwellBuchanan]
// I found some links by searching for "human fails Turing test" (with quotes) |
|
| |
So did I, but when I read those links, I recognized them for the general cultural criticism related to call-centers and the increasing subtraction of humanity from the workplace that they were, rather than a description of an actual incident at a Turing or, more accurately, Loebner test. (And then there's the much-repeated article from a guy who was mistaken for a chat bot by horny teenagers, but the inability of horny teenagers to discriminate has been well-documented already, I don't think that counts.) |
|
| |
However, the added detail of the human being a Shakespeare scholar helped; see link. |
|
| |
[jutta] Yes, that seems to be the incident I
remembered and if it is this is providing more
information about it that I remembered at the
time. My apologies for getting her gender wrong. |
|
| |
Looking at the article you can see why judges
might have though she was a machine. Asking
questions when a chatbot get confused is a
common tactic, for example, although I think she
was asking questions to be sociable. |
|
| |
[later: Finished reading it and enjoyed it so much I
tweeted the URL!] |
|
| |
Derr. If we were, we'd be asking "are we humans?" |
|
| |
I see a voter moderated website thing as being capable of discerning a unique level of humanish thinking. We are always on the lookout for bots (think beanangel). The real fun is when, at the end of the year, certain users are revealed as bot, and we all have a good laugh at our foolishness. The bot will get a gift certificate. |
|
| |
// "human fails Turing test" // Why would a human be undergoing a Turing test in the first place? |
|
| |
In order to keep judges of the the Loebner Prize
Competition in Artificial Intelligence competition
guessing they had both humans and computers
corresponding via text to questions. In the initial
one of the eight responders tested six were
computers and two were human. |
|
| |
[jutta]'s link provides a fuller explanation. |
|
| |