# First Computer to Pass Turing Test



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

https://richarddawkins.net/2014/06/a-computer-program-has-passed-the-turing-test-for-the-first-time/


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...-first-time-everyone-should-know-better.shtml


----------



## Razare (Apr 21, 2009)

LoL, so it cheated by pretending it was using a second language.

That's funny.

They'll keep improving mimicking tricks, though. That's not too hard to do, just requires more work... the real creativity is in the short-cuts they come up with to get a lot of behaviors without much work.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@Razare

Wouldn't it gaming the system by explaining away it's odd responses by pretending to be from another country a sign of intelligence? Even self awareness of it's poor ability to speak?


----------



## Razare (Apr 21, 2009)

RobynC said:


> @_Razare_
> 
> Wouldn't it gaming the system by explaining away it's odd responses by pretending to be from another country a sign of intelligence? Even self awareness of it's poor ability to speak?


No, actually. Because it likely was not programmed with self-awareness, but rather an equation. The equation looks something like...

IF ( CheckToSeeIfSuspicious($INPUT) == TRUE ) THEN $OUTPUT = GenerateExcuse();

So then, a man came up with this mechanism to fool someone, much like how windows or a calculator works.

Now, where it gets advanced is they can get smoother language generation customized for the inputs based upon neural network learning and such.

A neural network, could be optimized to provide excuses maybe? It's possible, but neural network optimization isn't intelligence.

Neural network intelligence works just like an excel spreadsheet "Solve For" function. The optimal result pre-exists based upon the conditions of the situation, but the result is a finite solution within narrow bounds.

https://support.office.com/en-us/ar...g-Solver-9ed03c9f-7caf-4d99-bb6d-078f96d1652c

Having more advanced "Solve For"'s chained together doesn't arise to the level of human intelligence, it can just mimic it.

Yet the "Solve For"'s will be clunky, so what the programmers do is go back through the programming and smooth out the results it is providing, to make the illusion work better... so even at the final result, there is usually manual tinkering. Like a movie, we might call this editing to get the final product.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

Actually humans weren't "programmed" to be conscious...


----------



## VinnieBob (Mar 24, 2014)

RobynC said:


> Actually humans weren't "programmed" to be conscious...


that is a interesting question
we are programmed by our personality type
plus our basic primitive instinct for survival and prolongation of our species
alas it is a question that has not been empirically answered yet


----------



## Stelmaria (Sep 30, 2011)

Some people say the Turing test is too weak...

A more interesting question: Is it only a matter of time before AI starts to replace us in our jobs? (in the same way that automation replaces manual labour jobs)


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

Vinniebob said:


> we are programmed by our personality type


Actually we're conscious because of the way our brain is wired... it's an emergent phenomena


----------



## caffeinekid (Jun 29, 2015)

So, an African mathematician, a Russian programmer and a blog writer for Yahoo! walk into a bar.......


----------



## Fuel (Oct 20, 2015)

So, a computer passed the Turing test, but is it because computers are becoming smarter or because humans are becoming dumber?


----------



## Apolo (Aug 15, 2014)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...-first-time-everyone-should-know-better.shtml


I guess everyone in here is glossing over this article.


----------



## Ashvin (Aug 21, 2012)

Snowy Leopard said:


> ..Is it only a matter of time before AI starts to replace us in our jobs? (in the same way that automation replaces manual labour jobs)


Probably soon. Human labor is typically the single biggest cost/expense for a business. Businesses want to maximize profitability by maximizing revenues and minimizing expenses. Getting rid of human labor is a great way for a business to cut down its expenses.


----------



## Solrac026 (Mar 6, 2012)

Ashvin said:


> Probably soon. Human labor is typically the single biggest cost/expense for a business. Businesses want to maximize profitability by maximizing revenues and minimizing expenses. Getting rid of human labor is a great way for a business to cut down its expenses.


That's self defeating though. If enough businesses cut down on costs this way, demand will also go down.


----------



## Ninjaws (Jul 10, 2014)

Snowy Leopard said:


> Some people say the Turing test is too weak...
> 
> A more interesting question: Is it only a matter of time before AI starts to replace us in our jobs? (in the same way that automation replaces manual labour jobs)


Computers can only do exactly what you tell them to do. A repetitive task is easy, since it is predictable. Processes that can't be duplicated cannot be done by computers. The list of variables would be so massive that it would be just as easy to do it yourself.

For instance, building a bridge. If you want a computer to do it, you'd have to tell it about the material, the length, the support structure, the wind speeds in that area, the width, the weight, etc.

For an engineer it would just as easy to do this calculations yourself. After all, all the ai does is print out the answer to the equation. An engineer knows these equations inside out, so there isn't much of an advantage.


----------



## huhh (Apr 15, 2015)

Snowy Leopard said:


> Some people say the Turing test is too weak...
> 
> A more interesting question: Is it only a matter of time before AI starts to replace us in our jobs? (in the same way that automation replaces manual labour jobs)


Yes, if the world continues in the current fashion I don't have a doubt. The question is really how many, if any, humans will be left at work/alive. *scary music*



Ninjaws said:


> Computers can only do exactly what you tell them to do. A repetitive task is easy, since it is predictable. Processes that can't be duplicated cannot be done by computers. The list of variables would be so massive that it would be just as easy to do it yourself.
> 
> For instance, building a bridge. If you want a computer to do it, you'd have to tell it about the material, the length, the support structure, the wind speeds in that area, the width, the weight, etc.
> 
> For an engineer it would just as easy to do this calculations yourself. After all, all the ai does is print out the answer to the equation. An engineer knows these equations inside out, so there isn't much of an advantage.


Can humans perform processes that cannot be duplicated?


----------



## Ashvin (Aug 21, 2012)

Solrac026 said:


> That's self defeating though. If enough businesses cut down on costs this way, demand will also go down.


Exactly. Two words - Economic Collapse. :smile:


----------



## Ninjaws (Jul 10, 2014)

huhh said:


> Can humans perform processes that cannot be duplicated?


I am talking about unique circumstances. Computers do exactly what you tell them to. If what they have to do changes constantly, they will be useless. Have you ever done some computer programming? If so, this should be obvious.


----------



## huhh (Apr 15, 2015)

Ninjaws said:


> I am talking about unique circumstances. Computers do exactly what you tell them to. If what they have to do changes constantly, they will be useless. Have you ever done some computer programming? If so, this should be obvious.


I'm speaking from more of an abstract view and my point is that humans operate in the same way, only that we have been "programmed" for a much wider range of scenarios, we are useless in the same way if we have to do changes constantly, only that we are so complex that this is hardly noticeable to us.

In life we can almost always muster some kind of reaction or response to every occurence, but how much of this is just originating from us being "programmed" to accept/use a response that's not really answers the situation in a truly objective, meaningful way?

If someone honks their car horn at me I(the subconscious really) will generate a series of possible reasons for this and evalute in what way to respond, I might end up with "proably someone i know" but it might just have been someone who accidentally honked. A computer operates in the same way? So my point is really that in this way a computer will be able to mimic a person fully in the future, regarding consciousness and feelings etc, that's a harder question.

I've never done computer programming but I would like to learn it some day.


----------



## Ninjaws (Jul 10, 2014)

huhh said:


> I'm speaking from more of an abstract view and my point is that humans operate in the same way, only that we have been "programmed" for a much wider range of scenarios, we are useless in the same way if we have to do changes constantly, only that we are so complex that this is hardly noticeable to us.
> 
> In life we can almost always muster some kind of reaction or response to every occurence, but how much of this is just originating from us being "programmed" to accept/use a response that's not really answers the situation in a truly objective, meaningful way?
> 
> ...


Actually, that is a very good point. Given enough lines of code (it would take decades, but it is possible), a computer could learn the fixed response to practically every situation. However, with so many if statements, the program would be incredibly slow (there are millions of possible situations). That's why computers are usually programmed to do a single thing. This way, it doesn't have to choose which makes it really fast.


As for programming, C# in Unity seems like a good starting point. It is easy to learn and you quickly see the results of your work. You can instantly start making levels filled with objects. Gravity and collision are already in there, so that takes some of the more difficult parts out of it.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

I know nothing of computers but I have read that the hardest thing for AI to replicate is not logic or thought but simple motor tasks and unconscious processes that have been honed by many years of natural selection. Like, could you make a robot soccer player that could beat the best like you could a chess player? lol.

I also think a mind and understanding between people takes a shared experience. Culture. Social elements. Which computers do not have.


----------



## Stelmaria (Sep 30, 2011)

Ninjaws said:


> Computers can only do exactly what you tell them to do. A repetitive task is easy, since it is predictable. Processes that can't be duplicated cannot be done by computers. The list of variables would be so massive that it would be just as easy to do it yourself.
> 
> For instance, building a bridge. If you want a computer to do it, you'd have to tell it about the material, the length, the support structure, the wind speeds in that area, the width, the weight, etc.
> 
> For an engineer it would just as easy to do this calculations yourself. After all, all the ai does is print out the answer to the equation. An engineer knows these equations inside out, so there isn't much of an advantage.


The part that you are missing is scale. If you are building just one bridge, then sure. If you are building millions of bridges (to be built by robots) then it is worth teaching the computer about materials and other aspects of construction!


----------



## Father of Dragons (May 7, 2012)

I don't think human sensibilities or consciousness, whatever that is exactly, is necessary for machines to outclass us in some of the most meaningful ways, ie; employment and creation. For example, computers are great at chess even if they don't enjoy it or appreciate the culture and history of the game in any way. Unfortunately, most of the intangible values we hold dear are irrelevant to performing most productive tasks. 

It seems to me that once we create computers which can learn and strategize at higher levels, at the level of metacognition - deciding for themselves what to learn - we will have some very uncomfortable questions to ask. Namely, what will our role be when our machines are better than us at almost everything?


----------



## Ziwosa (Sep 25, 2010)

Ninjaws said:


> I am talking about unique circumstances. Computers do exactly what you tell them to. If what they have to do changes constantly, they will be useless. Have you ever done some computer programming? If so, this should be obvious.





Ninjaws said:


> Actually, that is a very good point. Given enough lines of code (it would take decades, but it is possible), a computer could learn the fixed response to practically every situation. However, with so many if statements, the program would be incredibly slow (there are millions of possible situations). That's why computers are usually programmed to do a single thing. This way, it doesn't have to choose which makes it really fast.


And if you dig a little deeper into how 'programming' AI is being done these days, you'd realize they're not using the approach of putting thousands of conditions in place but are instead copying how the brain works. Also, if you think a little further, you'd quickly figure that thousands of IF's wouldn't ever work. Not even millions. Or even billions. You need a mechanism that is able to come up with their own IF's.

for example: IBM Research: Brain-inspired Chip


----------

