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.
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.
BIG if. When is that going to happen, Ed?
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?
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
Eric rightly observes,
To which Ed George responds,
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.
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’
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:
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.
A more scientific test for AI, rather than just ‘fooling people’, is the Lovelace Test that has been championed by Dr. Robert Marks:
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:
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:
@Polistra@3
Congratulations; pithy, wish I had thought if it.