Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

UD Developer Creates Artificial Intelligence Software Which Passes Turing Test!

arroba Email

Recently a group beat the “Turing Test” by creating a software Artificial Intelligence program that acted like a human.

The Turing Test is a theoretical test invented by Alan Turing to decide whether or not a computer software program is truly intelligent (like a human) or just faking it.

The way the Russian group did it was by making it pretend that it was a Ukrainian teenager, so they didn’t know the language nor much of anything else. However, even with that, it only fooled 33% of the people.

I, however, have created a new, even better software AI, which perfectly simulates the interaction with another human being, so much so that no one can possibly tell the difference.

You can interact with my new AI software creation here.

Mapou Human intelligence is not memory. our thinking is from our soul. Our soul just reads and interacts with the world using the memory. I think its more important then realized at all. I don't think those you listed get the credit for the computer. I think it was some Yanks who actually tried to get a patent. Thats where our actual computer comes from. Yes computers are just memory machines and so are not thinking machines. They never have to THINK IT OVER. Its already been settled and so no thinking. Robert Byers
Turing Test Extra Credit - Convince The Examiner That He's The Computer - cartoon http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/turing_test.png bornagain77
JB's test was . . . a joke! kairosfocus
since a computer cannot invent information, or to take context into consideration, one simple way of defeating the Turing test is to tell, or to invent, a joke:,,, “(a computer) lacks the ability to distinguish between language and meta-language.,,, As known, jokes are difficult to understand and even more difficult to invent, given their subtle semantic traps and their complex linguistic squirms. The judge can reliably tell the human (from the computer)” Per niwrad https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/artificial-intelligence-or-intelligent-artifices/ bornagain77
No, A 'Supercomputer' Did NOT Pass The Turing Test For The First Time And Everyone Should Know Better from the what-a-waste-of-time dept So, this weekend's news in the tech world was flooded with a "story" about how a "chatbot" passed the Turing Test for "the first time," with lots of publications buying every point in the story and talking about what a big deal it was. Except, almost everything about the story is bogus and a bunch of gullible reporters ran with it, because that's what they do. First, here's the press release from the University of Reading, which should have set off all sorts of alarm bells for any reporter. Here are some quotes, almost all of which are misleading or bogus: (Read More Here) https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140609/07284327524/no-supercomputer-did-not-pass-turing-test-first-time-everyone-should-know-better.shtml also of note: Alan’s brain tells his mind, “Don’t you blow it.” Listen up! (Even though it’s inchoate.) “My claim’s neat and clean. I’m a Turing Machine!” … ‘Tis somewhat curious how he could know it. Are Humans merely Turing Machines? Alan Turing extended Godel’s incompleteness to material computers, as is illustrated in this following video: Alan Turing & Kurt Godel – Incompleteness Theorem and Human Intuition – video (with Gregory Chaitin) https://vimeo.com/92387854 It is interesting to note that even though, as was shown in the Godel-Turing video, Alan Turing believed humans were merely machines, much like the computers he had envisioned, Turing failed to realize that his entire idea for computers came to him suddenly, ‘in a vision’ as he put it, thus confirming Godel’s contention that humans had access to the ‘divine spark of intuition’. A divine spark which enables humans to transcend the limits he, and Godel, had found in the incompleteness theorem for computers, mathematics, and even for all of material reality in general (Jaki). Gödel's philosophical challenge (to Turing) - Wilfried Sieg - lecture video ("The human mind infinitely surpasses any finite machine.") http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=je9ksvZ9Av4 "Either mathematics is too big for the human mind or the human mind is more than a machine" ~ Kurt Godel The Limits Of Reason - Gregory Chaitin - 2006 Excerpt: an infinite number of true mathematical theorems exist that cannot be proved from any finite system of axioms.,,, http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~chaitin/sciamer3.pdf the following paper gives the secret away for defeating the infamous ‘Turing test’: Algorithmic Information Theory, Free Will and the Turing Test - Douglas G. Robertson - 1999 Excerpt: Chaitin’s Algorithmic Information Theory shows that information is conserved under formal mathematical operations and, equivalently, under computer operations. This conservation law puts a new perspective on many familiar problems related to artificial intelligence. For example, the famous “Turing test” for artificial intelligence could be defeated by simply asking for a new axiom in mathematics. Human mathematicians are able to create axioms, but a computer program cannot do this without violating information conservation. Creating new axioms and free will are shown to be different aspects of the same phenomenon: the creation of new information. “… no operation performed by a computer can create new information.” http://cires.colorado.edu/~doug/philosophy/info8.pdf Also of note, computers also have a tremendous weakness when taking context into consideration: What Is a Mind? More Hype from Big Data - Erik J. Larson - May 6, 2014 Excerpt: In 1979, University of Pittsburgh philosopher John Haugeland wrote an interesting article in the Journal of Philosophy, "Understanding Natural Language," about Artificial Intelligence. At that time, philosophy and AI were still paired, if uncomfortably. Haugeland's article is one of my all time favorite expositions of the deep mystery of how we interpret language. He gave a number of examples of sentences and longer narratives that, because of ambiguities at the lexical (word) level, he said required "holistic interpretation." That is, the ambiguities weren't resolvable except by taking a broader context into account. The words by themselves weren't enough. Well, I took the old 1979 examples Haugeland claimed were difficult for MT, and submitted them to Google Translate, as an informal "test" to see if his claims were still valid today.,,, ,,,Translation must account for context, so the fact that Google Translate generates the same phrase in radically different contexts is simply Haugeland's point about machine translation made afresh, in 2014. Erik J. Larson - Founder and CEO of a software company in Austin, Texas http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/05/what_is_a_mind085251.html bornagain77
Byers, I agree that Alan Turing's work is way overrated. The real pioneers of computing are Charles Babbage and Lady Ada Lovelace. Modern computers owe their existence to John Von Neumann and the development of very large scale integration. The Turing test has been a monumental waste of time, minds and money. It encourages fakery rather than intelligence. Turing's ideas gave rise to symbolic AI or GOFAI (good old fashion AI), the AI model that sent the entire field chasing after a red herring for half a century. Some are still at it as I write. You say machine intelligence is memory work and I could not agree more. But then again, so is human and animal intelligence. This will be demonstrated to you in your lifetime. Mapou
AI is not intelligence. iTs just memory operations. Are humans just memory operations? No. WE are thinkers including wrong profound thinkers. Computers couldn't think up the error of evolution or correct it. I can't see why its called machine intelligence when its all memory work. what is not memory work in a computer. it can't say no to its memory operations. it can't be wrong. its not thinking or intelligently poor thinking. This Turing guy, who's bio I saw on youtube, was just plain wrong and dumb. Also breaking the law against homosexuality. obey the law and no problem. Robert Byers
Purrfect: >> Question: hi Jack Response: [Baby continues sleeping] Question: how is teddy? Response: [Baby continues sleeping] Question: cootchy cootchy coo, how is Jacksie? Response: [Baby continues sleeping] >> 100% accurate. KF PS: Your proposal is interesting, is this connected tot he oracle idea? That plus the Smith two tier cybernetic controller would be very interesting. kairosfocus
The problem with machine intelligence is a theoretical problem more than it is a theological one. Turing machines have limits as Godel and Turing both showed (Godel's incompleteness and Turing's halting problem), and these limits prevent it from being intelligent, as it shows the machines are unable to infer axioms. The only way past this is to have a non-Turing machine, which actually makes it something *other* than a computer. Computers will never solve AI, but something else may. johnnyb
To suggest that any other animal on earth has a high level of intelligence, or that the possibility exists for humans to create a computer who’s intelligence is indistinguishable from that of humans, would be considered heresy.
This is funny. I am a Christian and I believe the whole physical universe was designed and created by advanced minds. I am also an AI researcher. I realize that many Christian fundamentalists don't like the idea of machine intelligence but that's their loss, not mine. I personally have no problem with machines being as intelligent as human beings. In fact, I happen to believe that the secret to understanding intelligence was handed to us thousands of years ago but we never recognized it for what it is. Within the next couple of months, I will be releasing a speech recognition demo program that, not unlike humans, can learn to recognize speech in any language, just by listening from a microphone. Although this alone would be big news (the current Deep Learning paradigm will be displaced almost overnight), this is not the big surprise. The big surprise is that I did not get my understanding of cortical sensory learning from the scientific community or my own wisdom. I found it somewhere. I got it primarily from two ancient books, the book of Zechariah and the book of Revelation. Surprise! Keep your ears and eyes open. Mapou
@Andre: "who said intelligence is unique to humans?" Not me. Although there are many who comment on UD that believe that the only intelligences are humans and that mythical intelligence that supposedly made everything. To suggest that any other animal on earth has a high level of intelligence, or that the possibility exists for humans to create a computer who's intelligence is indistinguishable from that of humans, would be considered heresy. Acartia_bogart
Bogart, who said intelligence is unique to humans? Andre
There is little doubt that a computer will pass the Turing test eventually, but I guarantee that it will be questioned simply because, on an emotional level, people will never accept the possibility that intelligence may not be uniquely human. But of of more importance was that Alan Turing was a significant contributor to the Allies winning the war through his decryption skills. His reward for this effort was to be allowed to chose between jail time or chemical castration for that horrific crime of being a homosexual. Acartia_bogart
In fairness, my beef is with the article, not the programmers of the software. The Russian software group made the purpose of their experiment explicit - to show that, given the right profile, you can be vulnerable to an AI-assisted cybercrime. Fair enough, and worth exploring. However, the article tried to pass this off as an official "these guys passed the Turing test," which, given the way they passed it, isn't really a valid description of what happened. Hence, my parody. johnnyb
With all due respect to Alan Turing's work, but these test criteria are ludicrous... Sebestyen

Leave a Reply