Alan Turing was a visionary.
-
Alan Turing was a visionary. Super-perceptive computer scientist and it annoys me to no end that what he's most famous for outside of computer science is the "Turing Test."
He gave one of the first and most succinct accounts of how a computer should work and they still work that way to this very hour as I type.
Talk about Turing Machines more and Turing Tests less.
@futurebird And make Turing-complete computers out of cardboard for fun.
-
@futurebird Alan, but yes. There are so many amazing things he should be celebrated for.
Popular perception...
"Einstein? Isn't that the guy who invented the atom and then took the job as a search mascot for Salesforce?"
-
@futurebird Alan, but yes. There are so many amazing things he should be celebrated for.
One thing I like about Turing is most of what he speculates about works like a recipe. There is never any part of it that's so vague that you can't really try it.
-
One thing I like about Turing is most of what he speculates about works like a recipe. There is never any part of it that's so vague that you can't really try it.
And that was basically the idea. At least that's how I understand the paper from 1950: Take something vague that can "best be answered in a poll" and make it testable.
-
One thing I like about Turing is most of what he speculates about works like a recipe. There is never any part of it that's so vague that you can't really try it.
@futurebird absolutely. it was a very specific type of detail-oriented thinking that has been really important in computer science ever since.
-
R relay@relay.infosec.exchange shared this topic
-
@futurebird absolutely. it was a very specific type of detail-oriented thinking that has been really important in computer science ever since.
The problem with developing a "test for conciseness" is we do not have a definition for what it is that would allow such a test to work with other people who we can presume to be conscious (if conciseness can be well defined)
I think we should retreat to simpler questions. Here is one:
Is it possible for pain and suffering to exist without conciseness?
-
The problem with developing a "test for conciseness" is we do not have a definition for what it is that would allow such a test to work with other people who we can presume to be conscious (if conciseness can be well defined)
I think we should retreat to simpler questions. Here is one:
Is it possible for pain and suffering to exist without conciseness?
All of this handwringing about conciseness is ultimately about morality. Should you feel bad about crushing a bug? How bad should you feel?
Destroying beautiful things, destroying complex things, especially complex things that you don't understand strikes me as significant.
It's why you feel something when you see a mandala erased from the sand. It's why that erasure is incorporated into the tradition.
Sweeping the floor is not the same if there is a mandala.
-
All of this handwringing about conciseness is ultimately about morality. Should you feel bad about crushing a bug? How bad should you feel?
Destroying beautiful things, destroying complex things, especially complex things that you don't understand strikes me as significant.
It's why you feel something when you see a mandala erased from the sand. It's why that erasure is incorporated into the tradition.
Sweeping the floor is not the same if there is a mandala.
@futurebird our deepest sympathies on your autocorrect (it took us a sec but we figured out what you meant), that looks frustrating
yeah, if you'd asked us at any point in the first 40 years of our life we'd have said the Turing test was clear and obvious and would someday help us sort through these thorny questions
(we were intense kids)
-
@futurebird our deepest sympathies on your autocorrect (it took us a sec but we figured out what you meant), that looks frustrating
yeah, if you'd asked us at any point in the first 40 years of our life we'd have said the Turing test was clear and obvious and would someday help us sort through these thorny questions
(we were intense kids)
@futurebird it's become clear that it's just not sufficient. humans are easy to fool, and even if you try to adapt like oh, it has to be a qualified expert, that just makes it a game
if consciousness is even a coherent idea, that isn't what it is. it's not just about producing behavior, it's about what's going on internally.
-
@futurebird it's become clear that it's just not sufficient. humans are easy to fool, and even if you try to adapt like oh, it has to be a qualified expert, that just makes it a game
if consciousness is even a coherent idea, that isn't what it is. it's not just about producing behavior, it's about what's going on internally.
@futurebird as you say, people have feelings
-
@futurebird as you say, people have feelings
@futurebird we're not sure how strong the historical evidence for this is, but one documentary about Turing's life suggests that he came up with the idea of machine consciousness out of a fantasy of being reunited with a deceased childhood friend he had romantic feelings for, due to the difficulty of pursuing a gay relationship at the time.
we have no idea if that was part of it for real, but wow do we feel that. it was a sensible thing to want.
-
Alan Turing was a visionary. Super-perceptive computer scientist and it annoys me to no end that what he's most famous for outside of computer science is the "Turing Test."
He gave one of the first and most succinct accounts of how a computer should work and they still work that way to this very hour as I type.
Talk about Turing Machines more and Turing Tests less.
@futurebird ww2 code breaking, and as a victim of state repression before the inspiration of the voight kampff test, surely?
-
Alan Turing was a visionary. Super-perceptive computer scientist and it annoys me to no end that what he's most famous for outside of computer science is the "Turing Test."
He gave one of the first and most succinct accounts of how a computer should work and they still work that way to this very hour as I type.
Talk about Turing Machines more and Turing Tests less.
@futurebird@sauropods.win Maybe "Makers" should do a yearly "build a better Turing machine" contest. The winner receives an ACME better mouse trap as prize. -
R relay@relay.publicsquare.global shared this topic
-
@futurebird our deepest sympathies on your autocorrect (it took us a sec but we figured out what you meant), that looks frustrating
yeah, if you'd asked us at any point in the first 40 years of our life we'd have said the Turing test was clear and obvious and would someday help us sort through these thorny questions
(we were intense kids)
Given how English spelling "works" both of these words could be pronounced to be either one as far as I'm concerned.
conciseness
consciousnessWhat a nightmare and thanks.
-
Given how English spelling "works" both of these words could be pronounced to be either one as far as I'm concerned.
conciseness
consciousnessWhat a nightmare and thanks.
-
The problem with developing a "test for conciseness" is we do not have a definition for what it is that would allow such a test to work with other people who we can presume to be conscious (if conciseness can be well defined)
I think we should retreat to simpler questions. Here is one:
Is it possible for pain and suffering to exist without conciseness?
Not from personal experience, but I've been told that Jewish mothers certainly do express pain and suffering, and concision is not what they're known for in their expression of these feelings...
edit : of course if you edit your typo my message becomes completely weird.
That's very unfair ! Boo ! -
@futurebird our deepest sympathies on your autocorrect (it took us a sec but we figured out what you meant), that looks frustrating
yeah, if you'd asked us at any point in the first 40 years of our life we'd have said the Turing test was clear and obvious and would someday help us sort through these thorny questions
(we were intense kids)
@ireneista @futurebird
The Turing Test (not a real test) was never serious.
Alan Turing died in 1954. Chess, thought originally to need AI, didn't. He wrote one of the first.
The Eliza Chatbot was developed 1964 to 1967.
13 yrs?
The main limitation was that the data could not easily be extended. It "passed" the Touring test for some naïve users. The Doctor version is in Linux emacs. Run it, hit escape, type x and then type doctor.
The current LLMs have huge datasets, so seem more realistic. -
Given how English spelling "works" both of these words could be pronounced to be either one as far as I'm concerned.
conciseness
consciousnessWhat a nightmare and thanks.
@futurebird @ireneista One answer is to use "concision" for the first meaning.
-
@ireneista @futurebird
The Turing Test (not a real test) was never serious.
Alan Turing died in 1954. Chess, thought originally to need AI, didn't. He wrote one of the first.
The Eliza Chatbot was developed 1964 to 1967.
13 yrs?
The main limitation was that the data could not easily be extended. It "passed" the Touring test for some naïve users. The Doctor version is in Linux emacs. Run it, hit escape, type x and then type doctor.
The current LLMs have huge datasets, so seem more realistic.@raymaccarthy @futurebird it would be more accurate to say that the meaning of "AI" shifted to no longer include chess, once computers learned how to do chess
it's a fundamentally useless term in that way: everything we know how to do, stops seeming magical and no longer feels like it fits that over-hyped word
-
@raymaccarthy @futurebird it would be more accurate to say that the meaning of "AI" shifted to no longer include chess, once computers learned how to do chess
it's a fundamentally useless term in that way: everything we know how to do, stops seeming magical and no longer feels like it fits that over-hyped word
@raymaccarthy @futurebird sorry, when we say "accurate" it sounds like we're trying to do some sort of gotcha. we agree with you in general, we just have a way we usually talk about this heh
