Alan Turing was a visionary.
-
@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
-
@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.Human minds are not made of text and characters. Heck some people can't even deal with text. Look at me over here struggling to put my thoughts into the limited structure of words.
I'm going to cry about conciseness vs. consciousness they just look so similar.
-
@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
@raymaccarthy @futurebird but yeah, we played with Eliza as kids, learned its ins and outs, read a bit about the history, and kind of thought everyone had learned the lesson to not take the machine too seriously just because it's generating English text...
........ apparently not everyone paid attention though
-
Human minds are not made of text and characters. Heck some people can't even deal with text. Look at me over here struggling to put my thoughts into the limited structure of words.
I'm going to cry about conciseness vs. consciousness they just look so similar.
-
@raymaccarthy @futurebird but yeah, we played with Eliza as kids, learned its ins and outs, read a bit about the history, and kind of thought everyone had learned the lesson to not take the machine too seriously just because it's generating English text...
........ apparently not everyone paid attention though
It makes me really sad when people "fall for it" that is when people interact with an LLM and call it "creative" or "perceptive" ... the training data were full of the creative and perceptive concepts and sentences of real people and this is just some of that mashed together.
-
It makes me really sad when people "fall for it" that is when people interact with an LLM and call it "creative" or "perceptive" ... the training data were full of the creative and perceptive concepts and sentences of real people and this is just some of that mashed together.
It's like when a student does a problem and gets the right answer, but only by making multiple logical errors that cancel each other out.
This I mark as incorrect since they don't understand how to solve the problem or use the tools correctly. Even if the answer is right.
-
It's like when a student does a problem and gets the right answer, but only by making multiple logical errors that cancel each other out.
This I mark as incorrect since they don't understand how to solve the problem or use the tools correctly. Even if the answer is right.
@futurebird @raymaccarthy yes! that is a great analogy which we're probably gonna borrow
-
R relay@relay.mycrowd.ca shared this topic
-
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?
@futurebird
I find it funny how people have seemingly never heard of philosophical zombies. Also the fact that Turing specifically knew and stated that the "Turing test" wasn't about consciousness as that would be impossible to test.
@ireneista -
@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.
@ireneista this reminds me to this sci-fi novel, from 1880, L'Eve Future, about the purpose of creating an idealized copy of a woman, that is a love interest of the protagonist.
This novel explores the ideas of what could be technically needed to imitate a person. And this is used to create an idealized and complacent copy, much as AIs are designed today.
-
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 we could also defer to the reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing
-
@ireneista this reminds me to this sci-fi novel, from 1880, L'Eve Future, about the purpose of creating an idealized copy of a woman, that is a love interest of the protagonist.
This novel explores the ideas of what could be technically needed to imitate a person. And this is used to create an idealized and complacent copy, much as AIs are designed today.
Creating a copy of a person "for" a particular purpose or audience will lead to different results depending on the audience.
This is the fundamental problem with ignoring how the simulation of the mind works and focusing only on the output.
I know understanding how the brain and body works is hard, but I don't think we can just avoid it or find a shortcut if we really care about doing more than just fooling the target audience.
