Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > comp.ai.shells > #245

Re: For openers I submit an article that can get the ball rolling

Show all headers | View raw

vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> wrote:

> On Sat, 27 May 2023 08:23:44 GMT, vallor wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 19 May 2023 00:19:23 +0100, Sn!pe wrote:
> > 
> >> Nic <Nic@none.net> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> If a computer can fool 70% of judges in a five-minute conversation
> >>> into thinking it's a person, the computer passes the test. Would
> >>> passing the Turing test – something which now seems imminent – show
> >>> that an AI has achieved thought and understanding?
> >>> 
> >>> From <https://theconversation.com/chatgpt-cant-think-consciousness-is-
> > something-entirely-different-to-todays-ai-204823>
> >>> 
> >>> I invite all serious posters to participate.
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> --
> >>> Nic <Nic@none.net>
> >> 
> >> Your .sig separator is broken.  It should comprise "dash, dash, space,
> >> return" all on a line by itself.
> >> This facilitates automatic stripping from quotation by standards
> >> compliant Newsreader programs.
> >> 
> >> Re: your question:
> >> Does consciousness imply independent self-awareness?
> >> If so then no, current AIs are not conscious, merely programmed.
> > 
> > Programmed *to "learn"*, then "taught".
> > 
> > 
> >> Are AIs capable of deception by way of passing the Turing test?
> >> I would say yes; IMO the Turing Test is insufficiently rigorous and not
> >> fit for purpose.
> > 
> > Would you be willing to suggest a better test?
> 
> ChatGPT let's you share chat links now:
> 
> https://chat.openai.com/share/f480d3e5-e675-4b29-a7ca-5d0e528f3088
> 
> Let me know if that works properly.
> 
> Here is the chat, which I probably won't need to include in the future,
> hopefully:
>  _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> Q:
> is there a better test of general intelligence than the Turing Test?
> 
> ChatGPT:
> The Turing Test, proposed by the British mathematician and computer 
> scientist Alan Turing in 1950, has been a long-standing benchmark for
> artificial intelligence. However, it is not without its critics and 
> limitations. Some believe it focuses too much on the ability to mimic
> human conversation, which is just one aspect of intelligence.
> 
> In response to the shortcomings of the Turing Test, multiple alternatives
> have been proposed over the years:
> 
> The Winograd Schema Challenge: This is a test of natural language 
> understanding, named after computer scientist Terry Winograd. It involves
> resolving the reference of a pronoun in a sentence, which is a challenging
> problem for computers but easy for humans. This test attempts to measure
> an AI's understanding of a sentence's context, which is a key aspect of
> intelligence.
> 
> The Lovelace 2.0 Test of Artificial Creativity and Intelligence: Named
> after Ada Lovelace, this test assesses a machine's ability to create a
> piece of work (like a poem, painting, or novel) that the machine's 
> programmers did not explicitly design it to create. This tests for 
> creativity, a hallmark of human intelligence that the Turing Test doesn't
> measure.
> 
> The Coffee Test: Proposed by AI researcher Ben Goertzel, this test 
> requires a robot to go into an average American home and figure out how to
> make coffee: find the coffee machine, find the coffee, add water, find a
> mug, etc. This tests the AI's ability to perform tasks in an unfamiliar
> environment, which is another aspect of intelligence.
> 
> The BICA (Biologically Inspired Cognitive Architectures) Test: This is a
> much more comprehensive, albeit difficult, test that requires the AI to
> simulate the entire human mind. This would involve demonstrating a full
> range of human cognitive abilities, including emotion, self-awareness,
> consciousness, and theory of mind.
> 
> The Animal-AI Olympics: This is a competition that evaluates AI based on
> tasks commonly used in animal intelligence research. The tasks are 
> contained within a 3D environment where AI agents interact with objects,
> navigate mazes, and use tools, among other things.
> 
> However, all of these tests have their limitations, and they each measure
> different aspects of what we might consider intelligence. There may never
> be a single definitive test of general intelligence, whether for humans,
> animals, or machines, given that intelligence is multi-faceted and 
> context-dependent. It's also important to note that intelligence tests are
> just tools; they don't necessarily define the upper limits of an AI 
> system's abilities or potential.
>  _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> 
> Once again, it's a chat machine, not an answer machine.  I wonder
> how accurate that answer is?
> 

In your article above, you appear to have used the chat machine exactly
as an answer machine, have you not?  Whatever, I too wonder about the
accuracy of the answer.  In the absence of citations we have no way to
check other than by searching for them with a real search engine, or
relying on e.g. Wikipedia that ~does~ provide cites.  

Imagine the utility of having an all too plausible disinformation engine
readily available to e.g. an unscrupulous politician.  

-- 
^Ï^.       –  Sn!pe  –       <https://youtu.be/_kqytf31a8E>

 My pet rock Gordon just is.  
 

Back to comp.ai.shells | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

For openers I submit an article that can get the ball rolling Nic <Nic@none.net> - 2023-05-18 18:26 -0400
  Re: For openers I submit an article that can get the ball rolling snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2023-05-19 00:19 +0100
    Re: For openers I submit an article that can get the ball rolling Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2023-05-19 06:54 +0100
      Re: For openers I submit an article that can get the ball rolling snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2023-05-19 10:59 +0100
        Re: For openers I submit an article that can get the ball rolling vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2023-05-27 09:25 +0000
          Re: For openers I submit an article that can get the ball rolling snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2023-05-27 10:57 +0100
      Re: For openers I submit an article that can get the ball rolling Johnny <johnny@invalid.net> - 2023-05-19 07:34 -0500
        Re: For openers I submit an article that can get the ball rolling vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2023-05-27 08:16 +0000
          Re: For openers I submit an article that can get the ball rolling snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2023-05-27 09:46 +0100
    Re: For openers I submit an article that can get the ball rolling occam <occam@nowhere.nix> - 2023-05-19 08:17 +0200
      Re: For openers I submit an article that can get the ball rolling snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2023-05-19 10:59 +0100
    Re: For openers I submit an article that can get the ball rolling vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2023-05-27 08:23 +0000
      Re: For openers I submit an article that can get the ball rolling vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2023-05-27 08:38 +0000
        Re: For openers I submit an article that can get the ball rolling snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2023-05-27 10:01 +0100
          Re: For openers I submit an article that can get the ball rolling vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2023-05-27 10:05 +0000
            Re: For openers I submit an article that can get the ball rolling snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2023-05-27 11:34 +0100
      Re: For openers I submit an article that can get the ball rolling snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2023-05-27 09:45 +0100
  Re: For openers I submit an article that can get the ball rolling Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> - 2023-05-21 00:11 -0400
    Re: For openers I submit an article that can get the ball rolling snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2023-05-21 05:15 +0100

csiph-web