Artificial Intelligence Intelligent Design Mind Naturalism

Eric Holloway: The Turing test is unscientific

Spread the love

Eric Holloway points out that the assumption that the human mind can be reduced to a computer program has never really been tested:

This test for intelligence, the Turing Test, was invented by and named after the mid-twentieth century computer pioneer Alan Turing. It is a subjective test in that it depends on whether an artificial intelligence is capable of convincing human testers that it is a human. But fooling humans, while impressive, is not really the same thing as actually possessing human-level intelligence. In any event, some judges may be biased in favor of the AI passing the Turing test and may thus be easier to persuade than skeptical ones.

In 2014, an AI chatbot named Eugene Goostman passed one Turing test competition, organized by the UK’s Reading University.The chatbot was developed to give the impression of a 13-year-old Ukrainian boy, so that errors and manipulation of conversation could be overlooked. Quantum physicist Scott Aaronson showed just how unconvincing this chatbot was in a short conversation.

Eric Holloway, “Current artificial intelligence research is unscientific” at Mind Matters News

See also: Math shows why the mind can’t be reduced to a formula. The Liar’s Paradox shows that even mathematics cannot be reduced to a fixed set of axioms. Gödel’s discovery brought back a sense of wonder to mathematics and to the rest of human knowledge. His incompleteness theorem underlies the fact that human investigation can never exhaust all that can be known. Every discovery builds a path to a new discovery.

7 Replies to “Eric Holloway: The Turing test is unscientific

  1. 1
    Ed George says:

    If a human interacts with an AI on a daily basis, for an extended period of time, covering numerous subjects and conditions, and can’t distinguish the AI from a human then the only thing you can conclude is that you can’t rule out that who or whatever you were talking to has human level intelligence.

  2. 2
    ET says:

    BIG if. When is that going to happen, Ed?

  3. 3
    polistra says:

    The checkerboard test isn’t actually used. Why not start with the tests that are actually USED to distinguish humans for computers, like the distorted letters in ReCaptcha images?

  4. 4
    AaronS1978 says:

    The best magic tricks in the world are capable of convincing people that magic really exist but it doesn’t change the fact that it doesn’t really exist

    How is the machine any different from the machines used to trick people into believing magic is real?

    We go through and cleverly arrange data to trick humans into believing that the machine is a human

    That doesn’t mean it’s thinking like a human it’s just following the program which it was program to do which is learn how to trick a human

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    Eric rightly observes,

    We test only whether a computer can pass as a human intelligence, as judged by humans present at the time. However, that is a test of appearance only, not of substance, and it has no true scientific validity.,,, It is a subjective test in that it depends on whether an artificial intelligence is capable of convincing human testers that it is a human. But fooling humans, while impressive, is not really the same thing as actually possessing human-level intelligence.

    To which Ed George responds,

    If a human interacts with an AI on a daily basis, for an extended period of time, covering numerous subjects and conditions, and can’t distinguish the AI from a human then the only thing you can conclude is that you can’t rule out that who or whatever you were talking to has human level intelligence.

    LOL, and there you have it folks; A Darwinian atheist defending ‘fooling people’ as a test for intelligence.

    “Fooling people’ should be considered the very antithesis of science. In fact, the scientific method itself was set up by Bacon precisely because he knew that the human mind is fallible and prone to being deceived, i.e. gullible.

    Jan. 2020 – In Emily Morales’s research on Francis Bacon she notes that,,,, “It was the rather low regard for the fallen human mind, besieged as it were by sin, that drove Francis Bacon, the “Father” of the Scientific Method, to formulate a new epistemology”,,, and also notes that Darwinists baltantly ignore the “Baconian method”
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/welcome-to-the-brave-new-world-of-science/#comment-690388

    It is not surprising that a Darwinian atheist would try to defend ‘fooling people’ as a test for intelligence. “Fooling people’ with deceptive and misleading evidence is the bread and butter of Darwinian indoctrination of school children:

    Must reading for anyone concerned about their children being taught deceptive information about evolution in grade school textbooks is Jonathan Wells’s book ‘Icons Of Evolution’

    ‘Icons Of Evolution’ – Tenth Anniversary
    http://www.iconsofevolution.com/index.php3
    video clip playlist:
    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS2RPQAPifs6t__mIAqITpYy

    Dr. Wells has recently (2017) wrote a subsequent book, “Zombie Scince”, showing how Darwinists constantly recycle, or try to recycle, fraudulent evidence into grade school textbooks:

    Jonathan Wells Presents Zombie Science at National Book Launch – video – 2017
    https://youtu.be/I2UHLPVHjug?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS1rO4HiEiRBLalzTx-TaKYC&t=79

    Jonathan Wells Talks About His New Book — Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution- April 19, 2017
    https://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2017/04/jonathan-wells-talks-about-his-new-book-zombie-science-more-icons-of-evolution/
    Part 2
    https://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2017/04/jonathan-wells-talks-about-his-new-book-zombie-science-more-icons-of-evolution-pt-2/

    As to a having a true scientific test for artificial intelligence, instead of just ‘fooling people with the Turing test’ well,, since artificial intelligence suffers the same exact flaw as Darwinian evolution does, in that neither artificial intelligence nor Darwinian evolution can create information, then the ‘scientific test’ for artificial intelligence is, and always will be, the creation of new information. Or more specifically, the creation of new axioms.

    Algorithmic Information Theory, Free Will and the Turing Test – Douglas S. Robertson
    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 phenomena: the creation of new information.
    http://cires.colorado.edu/~dou...../info8.pdf

    The mathematical world – James Franklin – 7 April 2014
    Excerpt: the intellect (is) immaterial and immortal. If today’s naturalists do not wish to agree with that, there is a challenge for them. ‘Don’t tell me, show me’: build an artificial intelligence system that imitates genuine mathematical insight. There seem to be no promising plans on the drawing board.,,,
    – James Franklin is professor of mathematics at the University of New South Wales in Sydney.
    http://aeon.co/magazine/world-.....-be-about/

    Robert Marks: Some Things Computers Will Never Do: Nonalgorithmic Creativity and Unknowability – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cm0s7ag3SEc

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    A more scientific test for AI, rather than just ‘fooling people’, is the Lovelace Test that has been championed by Dr. Robert Marks:

    The Turing Test Is Dead. Long Live the Lovelace Test.
    Robert J. Marks II – July 3, 2014
    Excerpt: Here are a few others statements expressing doubt about the computer’s ability to create Strong AI.
    “…no operation performed by a computer can create new information.”
    Douglas G. Robertson
    “The [computing] machine does not create any new information, but it performs a very valuable transformation of known information.”
    Leon Brillouin
    “Either mathematics is too big for the human mind or the human mind is more than a machine.”
    – Kurt Godel
    and, of course, my favorite:7
    “Computers are no more able to create information than iPods are capable of creating music.”
    – Robert J. Marks II
    The limitations invoked by the law of conservation of information in computer programming have been a fundamental topic of investigation by Winston Ewert, William Dembski and me at the Evolutionary Informatics Lab. We have successfully and repeatedly debunked claims that computer programs simulating evolution are capable of generating information any greater than that intended by the programmer.8,9,10,11,12,13
    https://evolutionnews.org/2014/07/the_turing_test_1/

    In short, the core assumption of ID is that it ALWAYS takes an immaterial mind and/or intelligence to encode immaterial information into material substrates. Falsify that core assumption of ID and then you will have ‘scientifically’ established that artificial intelligence (and Darwinian evolution) are scientifically feasible.

    This is not just idle chatter. There is a 10 million dollar prize for anyone who can falsify the core assumption of ID:

    Artificial Intelligence + Origin of Life Prize, $10 Million USD
    https://www.herox.com/evolution2.0

    Until ID is falsified, (and it never will be falsified), Darwinists, and people who believe in AI, are just very unscientifically ‘fooling people’ with deception via their ‘Turing Test’. Francis Bacon would be appalled that such a ‘test’ would ever be entertained as somehow being related to science!

    Supplemental note:

    Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – Robert J. Marks II – June 12, 2017
    Excerpt: “There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,”,,, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,”
    https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/

  7. 7
    Belfast says:

    @Polistra@3
    Congratulations; pithy, wish I had thought if it.

Leave a Reply