Technology

37573 readers

475 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

If AI is making the Turing test obsolete, what might be better? (arstechnica.com)

submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

37 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

The Turing Test isn't really intended to identify a computer -- Turing's problem wasn't that we needed a way to identify computers.

At the time -- well, and to some extent today -- some people firmly felt that a computer could not actually think, that that is something "special" that only humans can do.

It's intended to support Turing's argument for a behavioral approach to thinking -- that if a computer can behave indistinguishably from a human that we agree thinks, then that should be the bar for what we talk about when talking about thinking.

There have been people since who have aimed to actually work towards such chatbot, but for Turing, this was just a hypothetical to support his argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test

The test was introduced by Turing in his 1950 paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" while working at the University of Manchester.[5] It opens with the words: "I propose to consider the question, 'Can machines think?'" Because "thinking" is difficult to define, Turing chooses to "replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words."[6]

Turing did not intend for his idea to be used to test the intelligence of programs—he wanted to provide a clear and understandable example to aid in the discussion of the philosophy of artificial intelligence.[82] John McCarthy argues that we should not be surprised that a philosophical idea turns out to be useless for practical applications. He observes that the philosophy of AI is "unlikely to have any more effect on the practice of AI research than philosophy of science generally has on the practice of science."[83][84]

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

There is, however, still the concept of the Chinese Room thought experiment, and I don't think AI will topple that one for a while.

For those who don't know and don't wish to browse off the site, the thought experiment posits a situation in which a guy who does not understand Chinese is sat in a room and told to respond to sets of Chinese characters that come into the room. He has a little booklet of responses—all completely in Chinese—for him to use to send responses out of the room. The thought experiment questions whether or not the system of the Chinese Room itself can be thought to understand Chinese or even the man himself.

With the Turing Test getting all of the media spotlight in AI, machine learning, and cognitive science, I think the Chinese Room should enter into the conversation as the field of AI looks towards G.A.I.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The Chinese Room has already been surpassed by LLMs, which have shown to contain neurons that activate in such high correlation to abstract concepts like "formal text" or "positive sentiment", that tweaking them is one of the options that LLM based chatbots are presenting to the user.

Analyzing the activation space, it's also been shown that LLMs categorize and cluster sequences of text representing similar concepts closer to each other, which allows them to present reasonably accurate zero shot responses that have never been in the training set (that "weren't in the book" for the Chinese Room).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

I don't understand what you mean by "The Chinese Room has already been surpassed by LLMs". It's not a test that can be surpassed. It's just a thought experiment.

In any case, you do bring up a good point. Perhaps this understanding is in the organization of the information. So if you have a Chinese room where all the query-response pairs are in arbitrary orders, then maybe you wouldn't consider that to be understanding. But if you have the data organized such that similar queries/responses are close to each other and this person in the room doing the answering can make mistakes such as accidentally copying out the response next to the correct response and still make sense, then maybe we can consider this system to have better understanding.