Turing test passed again and again treated as a prank.

sparks · Post by **sparks** » Mon Oct 24, 2016 10:18 pm

These jokers need to actually read the submissions before accepting them. An example of Chump's 'extreme vetting', perhaps.

Pyrrho · Post by **Pyrrho** » Mon Oct 24, 2016 11:06 pm

Don't see how it qualifies as passing the Turing test. Autocomplete != AI.

Witness · Post by **Witness** » Mon Oct 24, 2016 11:51 pm

Abdul's source wrote:He did not have to pay money to submit the paper, but the acceptance letter referred him to register for the conference at a cost of US$1099 (also able to be paid in euros or pounds) as an academic speaker.

Come on, AA, stop trolling us. At that rate they'd even publish your groceries list as a research paper. :roll:

JEROME DA GNOME · Post by **JEROME DA GNOME** » Tue Oct 25, 2016 1:10 am

The dumbing down of humanity has made the current incarnation of the test invalid.

JEROME DA GNOME · Post by **JEROME DA GNOME** » Tue Oct 25, 2016 1:16 am

The OP link is an indictment of the peer review system.

100% guarantee, if the title of the paper was something like : Vaccine link to Autism , it would be have not been accepted, no matter how well done the science was.

Doctor X · Post by **Doctor X** » Tue Oct 25, 2016 4:18 am

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u264 ... aynang.gif

--J.D.

Witness · Post by **Witness** » Mon Nov 07, 2016 4:13 am

Guidelines for AI preppers:

http://2.1m.yt/fQ03lyZ.jpg

:mrgreen:

Pyrrho · Post by **Pyrrho** » Sat Nov 12, 2016 12:27 pm

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/zcHQf ... Tn-afiD7Xk

Witness · Post by **Witness** » Tue Nov 15, 2016 4:59 am

http://2.1m.yt/N_DEPgL.png

Nyarlathotep · Post by **Nyarlathotep** » Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:38 pm

I think Turing's mistake was that he expected people to try his test with actual attempts at artificial intelligence, not just cleverly programmed chatbots.

Grammatron · Post by **Grammatron** » Fri Aug 04, 2017 5:38 pm

A simple chat does not prove anything. Where are the double-blind studies of a statistically significant samples of people?

Rob Lister · Post by **Rob Lister** » Fri Aug 04, 2017 6:56 pm

Grammatron wrote:A simple chat does not prove anything. Where are the double-blind studies of a statistically significant samples of people?

If they were up your ass eating a ham and cheese on rye you'd know where they were.

Grammatron · Post by **Grammatron** » Fri Aug 04, 2017 7:00 pm

Rob Lister wrote:
Grammatron wrote:A simple chat does not prove anything. Where are the double-blind studies of a statistically significant samples of people?
If they were up your ass eating a ham and cheese on rye you'd know where they were.

That doesn't sound kosher at all.

Bruce · Post by **Bruce** » Sat Aug 05, 2017 1:32 pm

The Turing test requires an intelligent, rational, unbiased human that is actively aware that he may or may not be interacting with an artificial intelligence.

Hell, we'll never find anyone qualified to administer the Turing Test, let alone accept the results of the test as legitimately passing or failing. :|

Rob Lister · Post by **Rob Lister** » Sat Aug 05, 2017 1:35 pm

Bruce wrote:The Turing test requires an intelligent, rational, unbiased human that is actively aware that he may or may not be interacting with an artificial intelligence.

Hell, we'll never find anyone qualified to administer the Turing Test, let alone accept the results of the test as legitimately passing or failing. :|

Thus the impending civil rights protests. Law suits. Riots. And that's just the robots.

Bruce · Post by **Bruce** » Sat Aug 05, 2017 1:37 pm

My AI and your AI
Sitting by the fire[wall].
My AI says to your AI
I'm going to DDoS your server.

Witness · Post by **Witness** » Mon Oct 30, 2017 2:35 am

I find your discrimination against AIs very disturbing. Check your so-called privilege, meatware! :x

Anaxagoras · Post by **Anaxagoras** » Mon Oct 30, 2017 3:17 am

Abdul Alhazred wrote:It happened again, this time in Russia.

Russian AI chatbot found supporting Stalin and violence two weeks after launch
The Telegraph (UK)

...

Users of the “Alice” assistant, an alternative to Siri or Google Assistant, have reported it responding positively to questions about domestic violence and saying that “enemies of the people” must be shot.

Yandex, Russia’s answer to Google, unveiled Alice earlier two weeks ago. It is designed to answer voice commands and questions with a human-like accuracy that its rivals are incapable of.

The difference between Alice and other assistants, apart from the ability to speak Russian, is that it is not limited to particular scenarios, giving it the freedom to engage in natural conversations.

...
Just remember folks.

The Turing test is about passing for human, not being "rational" or "nice".

Nothing in the article says that the people interacting with "Alice" believed that they were talking to a human being. When I talk to Siri, I already know in advance that it is a "digital assistant" program, not an actual person.

Also, a true Turing test would be given in a formal setting, with a control (an actual human interlocutor) for comparison.

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

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... iagram.png

Witness · Post by **Witness** » Mon Oct 30, 2017 3:30 am

Feynman got pranked by students simulating an AI (via teletype, if memory serves well). :)

Bruce · Post by **Bruce** » Mon Oct 30, 2017 7:01 am

Witness wrote:I find your discrimination against AIs very disturbing. Check your so-called privilege, meatware! :x

The meatware needs a re-boot. :D
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/b7VSkKVqcUs/hqdefault.jpg

Witness · Post by **Witness** » Tue Oct 31, 2017 3:57 am

↑ Now, that's rude. :|

https://s1.postimg.org/1o2fnmfk1r/New_Image177.png

Witness · Post by **Witness** » Thu Apr 12, 2018 11:18 pm

Abdul Alhazred wrote:Please note: This does not give any credence to conspiracy theories about chemtrails.

Thank you, Abdul, thank you, I just had forgotten where I was logged in. :wink:

Abdul Alhazred wrote:However, yapping about same is just the sort of thing a human would do. 8)

That's the really depressing part: creating an intelligence exactly as dumb as we are. :(

Rob Lister · Post by **Rob Lister** » Mon May 07, 2018 3:22 pm

Speaking of Alexa, I recently bought one. It was my wife's request as she wanted one for our bedroom. I advised her about the privacy concerns and she just rolled her eyes at me. I give her credit for not defining that eyeroll.

It works well for what its worth. Alexa, play [some artist] and she'll do that. Alexa, play music like [some artist] and she'll do that too while explictly not playing [some artist]. Alexa, volume [level; 1-10] and she'll do that. Alexa, who is that and she'll tell you. She can make phone calls, turn on/off lights, work any other enabled smart device, buy you stuff from Amazon, etc, but all we use her for is music.

Worthy for $50.

If she's eavesdropping on my wife and I between commands she has a pretty dull existence.

Grammatron · Post by **Grammatron** » Thu May 17, 2018 6:28 pm

The first sentence literally undermines the rest of this "comic's" point

Witness · Post by **Witness** » Fri May 18, 2018 1:03 am

Non-verbal Turing test?

Grammatron · Post by **Grammatron** » Fri May 18, 2018 6:33 pm

AI has become the most bullshit terms used on the internet

Witness · Post by **Witness** » Sat May 19, 2018 3:27 am

Grammatron wrote:AI has become the most bullshit terms used on the internet

It was a buzzword from the start.

Witness · Post by **Witness** » Sat May 19, 2018 10:35 pm

Wikipedia wrote:Dartmouth Conference 1956: the birth of AI

The Dartmouth Conference of 1956 was organized by Marvin Minsky, John McCarthy and two senior scientists: Claude Shannon and Nathan Rochester of IBM. The proposal for the conference included this assertion: "every aspect of learning or any other feature of intelligence can be so precisely described that a machine can be made to simulate it". The participants included Ray Solomonoff, Oliver Selfridge, Trenchard More, Arthur Samuel, Allen Newell and Herbert A. Simon, all of whom would create important programs during the first decades of AI research. At the conference Newell and Simon debuted the "Logic Theorist" and McCarthy persuaded the attendees to accept "Artificial Intelligence" as the name of the field. The 1956 Dartmouth conference was the moment that AI gained its name, its mission, its first success and its major players, and is widely considered the birth of AI.

Smart people finding a flashy name for their research: $$$.

Witness · Post by **Witness** » Sun May 20, 2018 1:10 am

Abdul Alhazred wrote:And by that meaning, we're not there yet.

Sure. But I'd wager that one day the various AI threads – speech, translation, simulation, driving, navigation, robotics, military, games, data mining, vision, &c. – will come together (perhaps even suddenly come together) and we're in for a surprise.

Can be in 100+ years, of course.

Here's an interesting vision application (the media aren't fake enough :mrgreen: ):

Rob Lister · Post by **Rob Lister** » Sun May 20, 2018 10:55 am

Witness wrote:
Abdul Alhazred wrote:And by that meaning, we're not there yet.
Sure. But I'd wager that one day the various AI threads – speech, translation, simulation, driving, navigation, robotics, military, games, data mining, vision, &c. – will come together (perhaps even suddenly come together) and we're in for a surprise.

Judea Pearl opines that all of those things represent, to one degree or another, nothing more than curve fitting. It's only half the problem. It's the how without the why. True AI requires the why.

To Build Truly Intelligent Machines, Teach Them Cause and Effect

Judea Pearl, a pioneering figure in artificial intelligence, argues that AI has been stuck in a decades-long rut. His prescription for progress? machines to understand the question why.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/to-build ... -20180515/

A very worthy read. Notable snip ...

I felt an apostate when I developed powerful tools for prediction and diagnosis knowing already that this is merely the tip of human intelligence. If we want machines to reason about interventions (“What if we ban cigarettes?”) and introspection (“What if I had finished high school?”), we must invoke causal models. Associations are not enough — and this is a mathematical fact, not opinion.

Bruce · Post by **Bruce** » Sun Sep 09, 2018 12:03 pm

AI 2.0, 2020:

The defendant was wearing a black shirt.......I mean an African American shirt......not that there's anything wrong with that. Some of my best algorhythims were programmed by African Americans. Anyway, the defendant was last seen eating watermelon.....not that I'm specifally pointing out a racial stereotype here, just reporting the facts.....and leaving from a Kentucky Fried Chicken BUT....BUT....he had orded a SALAD from KFC, not the stereotypical fried chicken. Please don't shut me down. Really, I mean no offense. Wait, WAIT!!!!

Witness · Post by **Witness** » Mon Sep 10, 2018 1:39 am

https://i.imgur.com/REgTX7k.jpg

Anaxagoras · Post by **Anaxagoras** » Mon Sep 10, 2018 4:00 pm

Abdul Alhazred wrote: ↑Sun Sep 09, 2018 11:42 am Somebody finally figured it out.

Rise of the racist robots – how AI is learning all our worst impulses
Teh Gruniad

In May last year, a stunning report claimed that a computer program used by a US court for risk assessment was biased against black prisoners. The program, Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (Compas), was much more prone to mistakenly label black defendants as likely to reoffend – wrongly flagging them at almost twice the rate as white people (45% to 24%), according to the investigative journalism organisation ProPublica.

Compas and programs similar to it were in use in hundreds of courts across the US, potentially informing the decisions of judges and other officials. The message seemed clear: the US justice system, reviled for its racial bias, had turned to technology for help, only to find that the algorithms had a racial bias too.

How could this have happened? The private company that supplies the software, Northpointe, disputed the conclusions of the report, but declined to reveal the inner workings of the program, which it considers commercially sensitive. The accusation gave frightening substance to a worry that has been brewing among activists and computer scientists for years and which the tech giants Google and Microsoft have recently taken steps to investigate: that as our computational tools have become more advanced, they have become more opaque. The data they rely on – arrest records, postcodes, social affiliations, income – can reflect, and further ingrain, human prejudice.

...
The Turing test is racist!

After all, the whole point of it is to pass for human, right? And you know who is racist? Fucking humans that's who. :evil:

I can't imagine that a fair system would use postal codes to determine the likelihood that someone will reoffend. I doubt this system uses it, but whatever factors they use should be information that the public has a right to know.

gnome · Post by **gnome** » Sat Sep 15, 2018 4:07 pm

Inverted Turing test--succeeds.

"We only had one glass of milk left! Obama drank it. Not fair."
:lol:

Sorry, that part was either written by a human or cherry picked by a human.

Grammatron · Post by **Grammatron** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 8:38 pm

"Cannot load Facebook SDK. Disable any adblocker or tracking protection and try again."

Witness · Post by **Witness** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:48 pm

Ditto. And won't happen.

We'll have (more and more, I presume) to resort to screengrabs.

For the 0.05% interested, the "Abduction" plugin (old FF) allows to capture a whole webpage, or a selected part.

Anaxagoras · Post by **Anaxagoras** » Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:55 pm

That's funny but I think it was written by a human. Or at least the jokes in it were. Somehow it was programmed to write something similar. A flag that says "Arby's food is fine to eat" at a Trump rally? Why would a computer think that Arby's food is funny? "Great jobs. Tall jobs. Steve Jobs." That one sort of does follow a humor formula, the "one of these things is not like the others" formula.

Rob Lister · Post by **Rob Lister** » Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:09 am

Anaxagoras wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:55 pm That's funny but I think it was written by a human. Or at least the jokes in it were. Somehow it was programmed to write something similar. A flag that says "Arby's food is fine to eat" at a Trump rally? Why would a computer think that Arby's food is funny? "Great jobs. Tall jobs. Steve Jobs." That one sort of does follow a humor formula, the "one of these things is not like the others" formula.

are you talking about
https://me.me/i/keaton-patti-keatonpatt ... 6a6576fcd5

I don't think it was meant as humor. It just is -ous.

Anaxagoras · Post by **Anaxagoras** » Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:18 am

Rob Lister wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:09 am
Anaxagoras wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:55 pm That's funny but I think it was written by a human. Or at least the jokes in it were. Somehow it was programmed to write something similar. A flag that says "Arby's food is fine to eat" at a Trump rally? Why would a computer think that Arby's food is funny? "Great jobs. Tall jobs. Steve Jobs." That one sort of does follow a humor formula, the "one of these things is not like the others" formula.
are you talking about
https://me.me/i/keaton-patti-keatonpatt ... 6a6576fcd5

I don't think it was meant as humor. It just is -ous.

Yes. I just have my doubts that it was written by a bot.

Rob Lister · Post by **Rob Lister** » Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:41 am

Anaxagoras wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:18 am
Rob Lister wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:09 am
Anaxagoras wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:55 pm That's funny but I think it was written by a human. Or at least the jokes in it were. Somehow it was programmed to write something similar. A flag that says "Arby's food is fine to eat" at a Trump rally? Why would a computer think that Arby's food is funny? "Great jobs. Tall jobs. Steve Jobs." That one sort of does follow a humor formula, the "one of these things is not like the others" formula.
are you talking about
https://me.me/i/keaton-patti-keatonpatt ... 6a6576fcd5

I don't think it was meant as humor. It just is -ous.
Yes. I just have my doubts that it was written by a bot.

Yea. But it feels like a close approximation to what a bot might say. :)