Turing Test Passed

[[deleted user]]

just heard on NPR that a Russian computer has passed the Turing Test. It fooled some human judges into thinking it was a 13 year old kid using english as a second language.

H.A.R.L.E.Y. can't be far behind.

[Timothy]

Are you really a computer Spooky? Am I?

[[deleted user]]

in truth there is no computer

[[deleted user]]

xkcd

[Michele]

Well, it wasn't really a computer, it was a chatbot which is like software I think? Some interesting discussions around now about how the Turing Test has been cheated and doesn't in this case prove any intelligence.

There's a quote somewhere of part of the "conversation."(sorry I don't remember where I read it)

I guess if your idea of intelligence is a 13 year old boy, then this is exciting. Me, I'm not too scared of computers taking over the world just yet.

[[deleted user]]

for my money, the Turing test is overrated...when a computer can contemplate it's own existence, THEN it's intelligent

[E.D.]

What possessed someone to write software that mimics the targets of online predators? Seems odd to me.

[Michele]

Ah I found it (io9) http://io9.com/why-the-turing-test-is...

[16:11:25] Judge: what music do you like?

[16:11:32] Eugene: I like Eminem – because he doesn't have a thing to do with "polite-correctness".

[16:11:46] Judge: OMG i love eminem, he's my favourite artist!

[16:12:00] Eugene: I wonder what Eminem's nick mean. I associate it only with a word "enema". But he is a cool guy, I like his "The Real Slim Shady".

[16:12:55] Judge: i know what his nick name means, his real name is Marshall Mathers. From the initials M&M phynetically sounding like Eminem.

[16:13:06] Eugene: Eminem is a famous crapper. No, raper... ripper... Yeah, I mean - rapper. I like his "Stan" and "The Real Slim Shady".

[16:13:32] Judge: I like "Hailies song"

[16:13:46] Eugene: Interesting tastes. I like science fiction books, by the way. Where do you came from, by the way? Could you tell me about the place where you live?

[16:14:22] Judge: Epsom, home of the derby. yourself?

[16:14:27] Eugene: My guinea pig says that name Derby sounds very nice.

[16:14:41] Judge: i shopuld talk with him sometime

[16:14:48] Eugene: I think you should take some typing lessons. Or just type more accurately.

[16:15:04] Judge: that's very rude?

[16:15:09] Eugene: Ummm... Frankly, I didn't get your question:-(

[16:15:49] Judge: "Ummm" isnt a word. i think you need typing lessons

[16:15:58] Eugene: My thoughts are same. By the way, I still don't know your specialty - or, possibly, I've missed it?

[[deleted user]]

Script-driven chatbots are nothing new.

Back in the 60's when I was at school there was a script-processing program called Eliza. The most popular script was known as Doctor, which pretended to be a psychiatrist. (That premise allows for a certain range of authority in its conversations.) We used to spend free time hacking up other scripts to emulate our friends :) (yes, that's geeky.)

While the Turing Test is an interesting experiment, I don't think it's particularly relevant to mankind's future. It's by definition human-centric. More practical applications of artificial intelligence (whatever that is) will be in more narrowly focused areas of expertise.

We don't insist an airplane flap its wings like a bird in order to observe that it flies, so why must a computer act human to be considered intelligent?

[[deleted user]]

Tim wrote: "Are you really a computer Spooky? Am I?"

An interesting short story by Beth Revis, The Turing Test, from last year's Lightspeed Magazine.

[[deleted user]]

for my money, AI programs that just do one thing (like Eliza, I played with that one on my old C-64 many hours) are not what I want in AI...I want a AI that can do a broad range of things well, that is self-aware, can function as a super-smart human...I want H.A.R.L.I.E. ....THAT'S true AI

[Nicholas]

I'm just ready for cars to drive themselves. I want to get in my car, tell it where I want to go, and just watch as the view passes me by. I'm so lazy that driving is a chore to me.

[[deleted user]]

Nicholas wrote: "I'm just ready for cars to drive themselves. I want to get in my car, tell it where I want to go, and just watch as the view passes me by. I'm so lazy that driving is a chore to me."

A self driving car is a good example of targeted artificial intelligence without sentience. (Also gives new meaning to the Blue Screen of Death. :)

I think self driving cars will be one of those things that's technologically feasible but slow to deploy. (First, they have to figure out the legal issues of who is responsible for crashes. Then, they have to persuade a generation of drivers that they'd rather be passengers again.)

[[deleted user]]

I'd love to have a self-driving car....I do OK driving in my punk little backwoods town, but I don't travel much because I freak out driving in cities...to much traffic + not knowing the roads = one spooked spooky

[[deleted user]]

I'd give several body parts for a car that would drive me half-way across country to Uncle Hugo's bookstore

[Nicholas]

The Internet told me that it's predicted that self-driving cars will be a possibility by 2030. Google's working on them I know, but then again, Google is plotting to take over the world alongside Amazon and Disney. They will be the Masters of the Universe by 2030 I assume. We must get ready to bow down to our overlords.

But convincing people to be only the passenger, I think it all depends on the price point. And the safety. If it goes lunatic and starts aiming for people and trains, then you have a problem. But if that's avoided, and the price generous, something new and revolutionary like that would have the power to persuade many to ditch the old and go with the new. Especially if they can text and drink away inside.

[Bittman]

I don't like the idea of a self driving car. Don't get me wrong. It is a novel concept, but I would be bored out of my mind, being one who gets sick if I shift my focus to anything inside the car when I am riding as a passenger. Staring out the window would get extremely dull mighty quick.

[Jim]

As someone who works with a fair amount of technology, including that in vehicles, I often think less is better. I want reliability in my vehicle & every extra bit of technology is one more piece that can break or interfere with another piece. I know of one vehicle (I will not name it.) that is mostly electric & has a defect where it would go into emergency mode (only goes very slowly for a short distance so you can pull over & get help) if the radio failed in a certain way.

Remember the issues with the Prius(?) not starting due to wireless interference? Push it half a block & all was fine. The manufacturer didn't want to pay for all the towing & hassle, either. If a wireless key caused all those problems, I wonder how much trouble a fully automated driving system can come up with.

And then there are safety features that can't be modified or turned off. My wife's 2005 Chevy 1500 dings at us about not wearing a seat belt every couple of minutes very loudly. It really freaks out if you keep a door open while in drive. We use it on a farm & in the fields so really don't want or need these safety features, but have no choice. It's one reason I still keep my older S10 running.

No, there are some things where simple is better. It allows for more reliability & individual choice. The first 10 miles of my commute is on a road with a 55mph speed limit. That's fine for the afternoon, but first thing in the morning, there are some areas where 35mph is too fast due to kamikaze deer. I doubt any car software is going to deal with them better than I can.

[Nicholas]

It's probably just a matter of perspective/preference/whatever. For me: I hate driving. I love being the passenger because I prefer being driven around.

But with each Generation change in attitudes tend to occur, and the way I see it, if some technology comes along that people believe can make their life a little easier, a little less stressful, a little more economic––they'll take it. The revolutionary aura of it would help spread its appeal. But marketing, that's where it's at. All you need is that one commercial or that one movie. If the style, message and tone are all in harmony, it could do wonders for a self-driving car's appeal. Price too, but not necessarily. But I would think that an autoself car could be built to be manually operated by a human. That would be a good feature to implement for those who would want it.

It's part of my belief that we're growing to serve technology, and not the other way around. If that's the case, technology will be in everything (it really already is––but to a higher intelligence). Tech is advancing fast and it doesn't seem to me it will be limited.

[E.D.]

If my car hits a school bus while I'm dozing in the backseat and children die...who gets sued or imprisoned...me or the car maker? Who's at fault?

[[deleted user]]

whoever the lawyer thinks he can pin it on...

[Jim]

E.D. wrote: "If my car hits a school bus while I'm dozing in the backseat and children die...who gets sued or imprisoned...me or the car maker? Who's at fault?"

Since the car company likely has much deeper pockets, I'd guess your responsibility would be minimized.

[Timothy]

I think a more interesting situation is where the Google self-driving car has to make a choice - hit a woman holding a baby or a Google employee? To be fair it is pretty unlikely this would happen, but the car would have some kind of obstacle ranking logic as to what the worst thing to hit was..

[Jim]

Maybe a point system like in "Death Race"?
Google employee - 5 points
Woman & baby - 10 points
Microsoft employee - 25 points
Member of the EU commission - 1000 points
;)

[[deleted user]]

E.D. wrote: "If my car hits a school bus while I'm dozing in the backseat and children die...who gets sued or imprisoned...me or the car maker? Who's at fault?"

If you look at the Google concept car, it doesn't even have a steering wheel, so any problems are either the other guy or product liability on the car company. (Among other things, the auto insurance industry won't like that, since you would need anything beyond theft and vandalism.)

Would you even need a licensed driver in such a car? Or any human at all? Could you take the car to work and then send it home on its own so the rest of the family could use it during the day? Could you have it pick up the kids after school all by itself?

I don't know if a car that can't be driven manually is in the near future. I wonder what the Google car does when a street is flooded or a traffic light is out and there's a cop waving traffic to a detour? And since my favorite use of a car is cruising on dirt roads through national forest, I wonder if it's up to that? Those obstacles aside, there are just a lot of people who enjoy driving. (Thinking of Will Smith in the "I, Robot" movie insisting on driving his automatic car.)

Self-driving cars will almost certainly have black boxes to deconstruct an accident's cause. And if there is any problem with the software, I'm sure General Motors will quickly step forward to take responsibility.

[[deleted user]]

I don't know....I can see these back-woods southern shysters arguing in court "this guy bought a car with NO STEARING WHEEL...of course it's his fault"....and I can see a backwoods jury ruleing aganst the company ar owner.....

[[deleted user]]

ruleing attain st the owner. I should say....

[E.D.]

"I'm sorry, Dave. You've put on some weight according to my sensor readings..so,..I won't stop at The Hoofburger. You'll thank me later. Trust me."

-- Hal 500 GT

[Jim]

Hah!