[8pla.net]

Wow!   

There is a book published: Turing's Imitation Game



Authors: Kevin Warwick, and Huma Shah

I worked for Kevin Warwick, Huma Shah and Hugh Loebner in 2008 as a Loebner Prize Judge at the University of Reading.  Huma assigned me to judge the Eugene Goostman machine, and I will always be grateful to her for that.  Yes, that is the same machine  that later passed the Turing Test in 2014.  Huma is really organized, very talented and highly professional as an international Turing Test manager.  I can hardly wait to read this book.   It's on my holiday wish list!

We are all familiar with Kevin Warwick because he is world famous, but i just want to share from my experience that Huma Shah is impressive.   During the Turing test judging process, Huma was always prepared for anything that came up , which made the competition run very smoothly.

Reference: https://www.cambridge.org/imitationgame

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[unreality]

Tell us what you think of the book after reading it. I got all 3 correct in the video, although the last one was ridiculously lacking in sufficient data to say for certain. In fall 3 were lacking in data. The AI expert was probably looking to much between the lines. It's a bit odd that the guy in the video would use those examples. What notable academic would consider a few questions as a valid means for a Turing test?

Those look like chatbots. Database driven. No offense to anyone, but I don't consider that real AI.

Maybe humans are getting too caught up in having AI be like them. Why? Is that supposed to be such a good thing? It won't be too many more years before AI can do everything humans can do with some silly exceptions such as sex.

Four popular tests:

1. The Turing Test  -  This one is a classic. Developed in 1950 by Alan Turing, a human and a chatbot will have a conversation with an unseen human being, and the unseen human being must evaluate who is the bot and who is the human.

2. The Coffee Test  - In 2007, Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak came up with another angle for robots that cannot talk. He made the bold claim that there will never be a robot that can walk into a house, find the kitchen and subsequently the coffee maker, identify the ingredients and tools needed to make a cuppa, and finally figure out how to operate the machine. He argued that these things are learned (to be fair I still cannot make a decent cup of coffee) and not programmed.

3. The Robot College Student Test  -  Another test formulated by Ben Goertzel is the Robot College Student Test. Simply put, the robot has to take all the classes and pass the exams and tests, just like its fellow human classmates. How far are we from achieving this? China’s Chengdu Zhunxingyunxue Technology developed AI-MATHS, which sat for two math tests of China’s notoriously tough national college entrance exams. It passed both exams without the help of the Internet, but its grades were not spectacular, barely passing both exams.

4. The Employment Test  - Computer scientist Nils Nilsson suggested in 2005 an alternative test to the Turing, an employment test to show that “machines exhibiting true human-level intelligence should be able to do many of the things humans are able to do”, including human jobs.

[unreality]

Here's Turing's original quote,

I believe that in about fifty years' time it will be possible to programme computers, with a storage capacity of about 109, to make them play the imitation game so well that an average interrogator will not have more than 70 percent chance of making the right identification after five minutes of questioning. … I believe that at the end of the century the use of words and general educated opinion will have altered so much that one will be able to speak of machines thinking without expecting to be contradicted.

The key word is "percent," which means you need to repeat the 5 minute chat enough times to get a good average that the academic feels comfortable with. Are academics impressed with the turing tests nowadays? Here are better tests.
https://io9.gizmodo.com/8-possible-alternatives-to-the-turing-test-1697983985

[Don Patrick]

The 5 minute chat was repeated 30 times in 2014. 10 out of 30 judges thought Eugene Goostman was a real person. That's a significant enough figure, but there were other complaints. Academics don't concern themselves much with the Turing Test, Kevin Warwick is an exception. He also published a paper claiming that the Turing Test could be passed if the chatbot remained silent.
http://www.i-programmer.info/news/105-artificial-intelligence/9896-a-flaw-in-turings-test-no-a-flaw-in-academia.html

[unreality]

10 out of 30 is not bad. Their questions should be well planned because the questions in that video were obviously not well thought out. I like how he started to get into the groove toward the end where he asked a math question, but the 5 minutes ran out lol. Although tbh I don't think math questions are so good for turing test. They need to ask detailed follow up questions to see if the AI can at least remember & learn. Anyway I agree that most academics shouldn't be concerned with turing test. Lets see AI teach itself to write computer software by request.

"AI, improve your code."

[ranch vermin]

yeh i doubt this,    making a chat bot is fricken hard,    the ai i have planned is easily detectable but that doesnt mean its not damn useful!

[unreality]

What would happen if you ask a chatbot something stupid like, "What's the square root of Einstein?"  Chatbot might give a serious answer, while a human might reply back with some clever humor.

[Don Patrick]

Try asking mitsuku.com. She's known to have puns. Coincidentally, the chatbot that passed Kevin Warwick's Turing Test was particularly un-serious in its answers.

[Art]

Mitsuku was too happy being asked that question (which I did two different times).
While she can do math, that 'mixed math' using the square root of einstein question
got me a "Do I look like, a calculator?" and "Do you have a life?" kind of response.

Clearly, she was not amused at my feeble attempt to test her wits.

She is a great chatbot that I've known for many years, and getting better all the time.