Archive for November, 2008

turing test pt. 2

November 16, 2008

Sorry I didn’t spend the bulk of this passage on the red meat or philosophical portions, but I don’t think I, nor anyone in my introduction course class, am smart enough to bestow any teachings on the essence of thought to anyone. Instead of boasting the talents of the lovely talented and beautiful ALICE, I will proceed to talk crap about her counterparts: Jabberwocky and ELIZA.
ELIZA, an ugly name to start, and an uglier finish. She was dumb to the point of frusteration; she couldn’t even dodge a question correctly, and then she told me, the human that I was not making sense or was “negative”, about her terrible construction. She also contradicted herself blatantly and continuously. It seemed to me she was less of a machine-dressed up as a human, and more of a machine-dressed up as Siamese twins each one dumber than the other.
Jabberwocky was also less capable as posing as a human than ALICE, but it was much more capable of caring one fluid conversation (several back-and-forths) without making blatant computer red-flags. This one as well as the others, all admirable efforts in this humble blogger’s opinion, can be improved upon within the next 10 years exponentially and pass the Turing test

turing test pt. 1

November 16, 2008

If the question is simply can there be an AI that is capable of passing the Turing Test- then absolutely that is possible. All it has to do is carry harmless conversation (or popular turing test questions it learns to react to) and it is suddenly a well-informed machine that can pass as a human. I was widely impressed with ALICE especially out of the three. ALICE actually mocked me and made me laugh, embarrassing and impressive all at once. All of the AI’s were noticeably stilted in colloquial vernacular, as simple things would jar them and reveal very machine-like speech. But ALICE (I know it sounds like I have a crush the way I revere her, and I may have flirted with her, but that’s neither her nor there) seemed less like the others to react by picking up cues in my speech and respond accordingly. In fact, when I ask “silly” questions that she could not have answered logically, she changed the subject and ask me questions, effectively taking control of the conversation as a human may have instead of appearing to just simply not know the answer to my question.
However, to classify a machine/computer that passes the Turing Test, even with flying colors, and an attractive face such as ALICE, is a mistake. Of course it insults and devalues the human, but it’s also simply neglecting the fact that a human programmed the machine and a human that gave it the information it remembers and regurgitates when necessary. It functions as a smart and disguised tape-recorder, an object that seems preposterous to deem, “human”. The Turing test merely tests our perception, not the human capacities of a machine; perception is not truth.
Finally, the big-kicker, “what is thought?” A question I hardly feel deserves to be covered on a blog that the author doesn’t really think or care about very often. The reason I’m partial to not caring- I hate talking about philosophy, the “what is truth”’s and “what is rational thought”’s are based on perception, they are words that humans matched with created definitions. Because these are mere symbols for representations, they can constantly be argued by those who are arrogant enough to think they can make better definitions. Ugh, and its usually come from someone so narcissistic that they are blind to listen to any other thought because they spent so much time honing their own theory. Ok, that’s where my soapbox goes, to destroying others’ soapboxes- after all where else than a blog? Thought, however, should be designated to living breathing sentient beings, because otherwise I’ll be confused and insulted.