Do we need to rethink the turing test?

[Patooka]

But does the Turing test really count if the software design intent is to mimic someone who is using emotions, not reason? Just regurgitating canned talking points and favored accusations to live out their persecuted rebel fantasy?

I wouldn't call a deciduous tree shedding its leaves as a reaction to the seasons sentient. I also wouldn't call someone who just spouts talking points proof of intelligence; more like a simple organism reacting to external stimuli.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

You mean like this with earpieced Biden saying "salute the marines" but not saluting them as he passes them?

https://mobile.twitter.com/llg_1988/status/1352201928705531906

So 400k people died under Trump during a pandemic because he wanted people to die, and you didn't care about that, but this is what catches your attention?

 

[Keith&Co.]

You mean like this with earpieced Biden saying "salute the marines" but not saluting them as he passes them?

https://mobile.twitter.com/llg_1988/status/1352201928705531906

Jesus fucknuckle.
Speaking as a military man of 20 years, 3 months, 3 days, CIVILIANS DO NOT RETURN THE HAND SALUTE. Military men off duty, IN CIVILIAN CLOTHES DO NOT SALUTE. It's something Reagan started doing, returning the salutes of the uniformed men he passed.
It's incorrect god-damned ettiquette! It's an affectation at best.

Biden was never in the military, but his son was. I assume thus conversation came up at some time during his service. So i would suggest he doesn't follow the expectation because HE ACTUALLY RESPECTS THE MILITARY AND THE TRADITIONS more than he cares about appeasing right-leaning media.

 

[Jarhyn]

You mean like this with earpieced Biden saying "salute the marines" but not saluting them as he passes them?

https://mobile.twitter.com/llg_1988/status/1352201928705531906

Jesus fucknuckle.
Speaking as a military man of 20 years, 3 months, 3 days, CIVILIANS DO NOT RETURN THE HAND SALUTE. Military men off duty, IN CIVILIAN CLOTHES DO NOT SALUTE. It's something Reagan started doing, returning the salutes of the uniformed men he passed.
It's incorrect god-damned ettiquette! It's an affectation at best.

Biden was never in the military, but his son was. I assume thus conversation came up at some time during his service. So i would suggest he doesn't follow the expectation because HE ACTUALLY RESPECTS THE MILITARY AND THE TRADITIONS more than he cares about appeasing right-leaning media.

To be fair, he didn't salute because he was distracted and taking behavioral prompts around a culturally distinct groups for whom anyone not inducted would absolutely need behavioral coaching to properly appease.

 

[ZiprHead]

Jesus fucknuckle.
Speaking as a military man of 20 years, 3 months, 3 days, CIVILIANS DO NOT RETURN THE HAND SALUTE. Military men off duty, IN CIVILIAN CLOTHES DO NOT SALUTE. It's something Reagan started doing, returning the salutes of the uniformed men he passed.
It's incorrect god-damned ettiquette! It's an affectation at best.

Biden was never in the military, but his son was. I assume thus conversation came up at some time during his service. So i would suggest he doesn't follow the expectation because HE ACTUALLY RESPECTS THE MILITARY AND THE TRADITIONS more than he cares about appeasing right-leaning media.

To be fair, he didn't salute because he was distracted and taking behavioral prompts around a culturally distinct groups for whom anyone not inducted would absolutely need behavioral coaching to properly appease.

I was going to say he was just appointed to the most powerful position on the fucking planet and probably had other things on his mind.

Is it worse than Trump saluting a N. Korean General?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Is it worse than Trump saluting a N. Korean General?

no, that one made my copy of the drill manual explode into green demonic fire.

 

[Jarhyn]

Jesus fucknuckle.
Speaking as a military man of 20 years, 3 months, 3 days, CIVILIANS DO NOT RETURN THE HAND SALUTE. Military men off duty, IN CIVILIAN CLOTHES DO NOT SALUTE. It's something Reagan started doing, returning the salutes of the uniformed men he passed.
It's incorrect god-damned ettiquette! It's an affectation at best.

Biden was never in the military, but his son was. I assume thus conversation came up at some time during his service. So i would suggest he doesn't follow the expectation because HE ACTUALLY RESPECTS THE MILITARY AND THE TRADITIONS more than he cares about appeasing right-leaning media.

To be fair, he didn't salute because he was distracted and taking behavioral prompts around a culturally distinct groups for whom anyone not inducted would absolutely need behavioral coaching to properly appease.

I was going to say he was just appointed to the most powerful position on the fucking planet and probably had other things on his mind.

Is it worse than Trump saluting a N. Korean General?

View attachment 31593

That too. And absolutely not. Talk about giving aid and comfort to our enemies.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Jesus fucknuckle.
Speaking as a military man of 20 years, 3 months, 3 days, CIVILIANS DO NOT RETURN THE HAND SALUTE. Military men off duty, IN CIVILIAN CLOTHES DO NOT SALUTE. It's something Reagan started doing, returning the salutes of the uniformed men he passed.
It's incorrect god-damned ettiquette! It's an affectation at best.

Biden was never in the military, but his son was. I assume thus conversation came up at some time during his service. So i would suggest he doesn't follow the expectation because HE ACTUALLY RESPECTS THE MILITARY AND THE TRADITIONS more than he cares about appeasing right-leaning media.

To be fair, he didn't salute because he was distracted and taking behavioral prompts around a culturally distinct groups for whom anyone not inducted would absolutely need behavioral coaching to properly appease.

I was going to say he was just appointed to the most powerful position on the fucking planet and probably had other things on his mind.

Is it worse than Trump saluting a N. Korean General?

View attachment 31593

Imagine if Obama had saluted a North Korean general. Conservatives would be freaking out about it nonstop.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You mean like this with earpieced Biden saying "salute the marines" but not saluting them as he passes them?

https://mobile.twitter.com/llg_1988/status/1352201928705531906

Jesus fucknuckle.
Speaking as a military man of 20 years, 3 months, 3 days, CIVILIANS DO NOT RETURN THE HAND SALUTE. Military men off duty, IN CIVILIAN CLOTHES DO NOT SALUTE. It's something Reagan started doing, returning the salutes of the uniformed men he passed.
It's incorrect god-damned ettiquette! It's an affectation at best.

Huh? The president is the commander of the military and is always on duty. I would think that means he should return a salute.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Jesus fucknuckle.
Speaking as a military man of 20 years, 3 months, 3 days, CIVILIANS DO NOT RETURN THE HAND SALUTE. Military men off duty, IN CIVILIAN CLOTHES DO NOT SALUTE. It's something Reagan started doing, returning the salutes of the uniformed men he passed.
It's incorrect god-damned ettiquette! It's an affectation at best.

Huh? The president is the commander of the military and is always on duty. I would think that means he should return a salute.

No. He commands the military, he is not IN the military.
He doesn't have a uniform. He outranks the officer described as the highest-ranking officer in the military.

You acknowledge the salute, nod your head or whatever, but not return it.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Jesus fucknuckle.
Speaking as a military man of 20 years, 3 months, 3 days, CIVILIANS DO NOT RETURN THE HAND SALUTE. Military men off duty, IN CIVILIAN CLOTHES DO NOT SALUTE. It's something Reagan started doing, returning the salutes of the uniformed men he passed.
It's incorrect god-damned ettiquette! It's an affectation at best.

Huh? The president is the commander of the military and is always on duty. I would think that means he should return a salute.

I'm far more concerned with the fact that hundreds of thousands of people have died during a pandemic. Seems like that should be more of a priority...

 

[bilby]

Jesus fucknuckle.
Speaking as a military man of 20 years, 3 months, 3 days, CIVILIANS DO NOT RETURN THE HAND SALUTE. Military men off duty, IN CIVILIAN CLOTHES DO NOT SALUTE. It's something Reagan started doing, returning the salutes of the uniformed men he passed.
It's incorrect god-damned ettiquette! It's an affectation at best.

Huh? The president is the commander of the military and is always on duty. I would think that means he should return a salute.

A salute should only be given when in uniform. Which, btw, is a technical term with a very specific definition. A soldier wearing a uniform, but not wearing his hat, is "out of uniform" and should NOT salute or return a salute. However, being out of uniform is, in specified circumstances, a disciplinary offence; A soldier not inside a building or vehicle should, in most circumstances, be "in uniform", and should therefore salute any higher ranking officer, or return the salute of a lower ranking member of the armed forces.

Note that being 'on duty' makes zero difference to whether or not to salute; The criterion is being "in uniform".

That's based on British Armed Services regulations; The details may differ in the US forces.

The regulations are intentionally pettifogging and abstruse, as they are designed to make enlisted men constantly aware of their lowly status, and constantly aware of the details and condition of their uniforms.

Etiquette (even outside the military) is necessarily prescriptivist. The rules are the rules, for no reason other than that they are the rules. It's a way of keeping up exclusivity. In the military, that actually serves a valuable purpose - it makes spies and imposters easier to spot.

In the aristocracy, it serves the same purpose, though it is debatable how useful it is in that environment.

 

[DrZoidberg]

All the total nonsense that people have accepted makes the bar for recognizing intelligence awfully low!

How else would you formulate the test? I think it's a good test. The basic problem is philosophical. We have chosen to use human intelligence as a baseline for what intelligence is. Since humans are all that smart, it has problems. But if you open it up to other definitions of what it means to be intelligent, we quickly run into trouble. It's an infinite variety of what counts, and everybody wants to prove how their thing is the smartest, so use a definition where they shine. At least the Turing test does away with all that.

The thing is we have so many extremists these days that could probably be emulated with a few thousand canned responses and a weighted keyword system to decide which of them to pick.

Yeah. I'm in IT and I've worked with machine learning (AI is what people who aren't in the industry say, it's a sci-fi term). In the 90'ies I played around with systems that beat the Turing test each time. At that point they were so good, and self learning, and good at constructing sentences that we could beat the Turning test each time. It was linguists who had analyzed human language and constructed a pretty stupid system but good enough to fool any human. Where it broke down is when doing anything specific, ie not just being a conversationalist. If it needed to narrow the vocabulary to only talk about a narrow domain, not defined in advance, it sounded like a computer immediately. I think that's still the situation. And is a hard problem to solve.

 

[Jarhyn]

Jesus fucknuckle.
Speaking as a military man of 20 years, 3 months, 3 days, CIVILIANS DO NOT RETURN THE HAND SALUTE. Military men off duty, IN CIVILIAN CLOTHES DO NOT SALUTE. It's something Reagan started doing, returning the salutes of the uniformed men he passed.
It's incorrect god-damned ettiquette! It's an affectation at best.

Huh? The president is the commander of the military and is always on duty. I would think that means he should return a salute.

It's a fucking Tan Suit and you goddamn well know it.

 

[Jarhyn]

The thing is we have so many extremists these days that could probably be emulated with a few thousand canned responses and a weighted keyword system to decide which of them to pick.

Yeah. I'm in IT and I've worked with machine learning (AI is what people who aren't in the industry say, it's a sci-fi term). In the 90'ies I played around with systems that beat the Turing test each time. At that point they were so good, and self learning, and good at constructing sentences that we could beat the Turning test each time. It was linguists who had analyzed human language and constructed a pretty stupid system but good enough to fool any human. Where it broke down is when doing anything specific, ie not just being a conversationalist. If it needed to narrow the vocabulary to only talk about a narrow domain, not defined in advance, it sounded like a computer immediately. I think that's still the situation. And is a hard problem to solve.

It's a hard problem to solve because when humans solve it, they solve it by narrowing and defining the domain in advance "the hard way" anyway. It's not as if we don't also have to do the work.

Try to narrow the domain down on a human being to a domain they haven't had years of training and work and it will sound like an idiot immediately, same as the computer. There's some great jokes about it in The IT Crowd, which I KNOW you've at least tried to watch (how could you not?).

This is what I'm talking about with "Chinese Room Humans". I am pretty well convinced that this model of internally ignorant word association is what is being leveraged by the Pols.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The thing is we have so many extremists these days that could probably be emulated with a few thousand canned responses and a weighted keyword system to decide which of them to pick.

Yeah. I'm in IT and I've worked with machine learning (AI is what people who aren't in the industry say, it's a sci-fi term). In the 90'ies I played around with systems that beat the Turing test each time. At that point they were so good, and self learning, and good at constructing sentences that we could beat the Turning test each time. It was linguists who had analyzed human language and constructed a pretty stupid system but good enough to fool any human. Where it broke down is when doing anything specific, ie not just being a conversationalist. If it needed to narrow the vocabulary to only talk about a narrow domain, not defined in advance, it sounded like a computer immediately. I think that's still the situation. And is a hard problem to solve.

It's a hard problem to solve because when humans solve it, they solve it by narrowing and defining the domain in advance "the hard way" anyway. It's not as if we don't also have to do the work.

Try to narrow the domain down on a human being to a domain they haven't had years of training and work and it will sound like an idiot immediately, same as the computer. There's some great jokes about it in The IT Crowd, which I KNOW you've at least tried to watch (how could you not?).

This is what I'm talking about with "Chinese Room Humans". I am pretty well convinced that this model of internally ignorant word association is what is being leveraged by the Pols.

I know every joke in the IT-crowd forwards and backwards.

The Chinese Room is a philosophical problem, not technical. I believe the Chinese room can speak Chinese. Searle thinks it can't. But the result is the same. I also think that a computer program can have real emotions. Ie, as real as our emotions.

Being able to fluidly shift focus and domain of language is arguably creativity and novel problem solving. That's the goal. That said, we don't need machines to do that. Since we can do it. It's more just a fun science project. Having them solve problems within a pre-determined domain, is the real value of machine intelligence, and we're there already. Now it's more a question of how to implement it rather than the more basic, how to do it at all.

A friend of mine just launched a machine learning fraud detection system for a major Danish bank. The system does all the routine bullshit, so that employees can focus on novel types of fraud. That's where we're at right now.

I do not think it's impossible for computers to become truly intelligent. I think it's only a matter of time. But nobody knows how that world will look or develop. It's too weird.

 

[Jarhyn]

It's a hard problem to solve because when humans solve it, they solve it by narrowing and defining the domain in advance "the hard way" anyway. It's not as if we don't also have to do the work.

Try to narrow the domain down on a human being to a domain they haven't had years of training and work and it will sound like an idiot immediately, same as the computer. There's some great jokes about it in The IT Crowd, which I KNOW you've at least tried to watch (how could you not?).

This is what I'm talking about with "Chinese Room Humans". I am pretty well convinced that this model of internally ignorant word association is what is being leveraged by the Pols.

I know every joke in the IT-crowd forwards and backwards.

The Chinese Room is a philosophical problem, not technical. I believe the Chinese room can speak Chinese. Searle thinks it can't. But the result is the same. I also think that a computer program can have real emotions. Ie, as real as our emotions.

Being able to fluidly shift focus and domain of language is arguably creativity and novel problem solving. That's the goal. That said, we don't need machines to do that. Since we can do it. It's more just a fun science project. Having them solve problems within a pre-determined domain, is the real value of machine intelligence, and we're there already. Now it's more a question of how to implement it rather than the more basic, how to do it at all.

A friend of mine just launched a machine learning fraud detection system for a major Danish bank. The system does all the routine bullshit, so that employees can focus on novel types of fraud. That's where we're at right now.

I do not think it's impossible for computers to become truly intelligent. I think it's only a matter of time. But nobody knows how that world will look or develop. It's too weird.

I think the Chinese Room IS a technical issue. At issue here is that we have humans, ostensibly "people", who function as Chinese Rooms. Are they human? Obviously.

But look even at some of the people here. As soon as we point out that they aren't actually passing the Turing Test of being able to read and grok evidence and models, they vanish into the woodwork just long enough to forget that they failed a Turing Test yet again.

Arguably, we absolutely need an AI that isn't just sitting in a chinese room, because it WILL eventually happen anyway (a chinese room 'bot may reach the necessary density of potential states amid circumstances that produce true understanding). If it happens without being there to offer it formal philosophical models as to ethics and society, I tremble at the potential for consequences.

The consequences are already bad enough when the Roomers are flesh and blood and don't have built-in wifi radios.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It's a hard problem to solve because when humans solve it, they solve it by narrowing and defining the domain in advance "the hard way" anyway. It's not as if we don't also have to do the work.

Try to narrow the domain down on a human being to a domain they haven't had years of training and work and it will sound like an idiot immediately, same as the computer. There's some great jokes about it in The IT Crowd, which I KNOW you've at least tried to watch (how could you not?).

This is what I'm talking about with "Chinese Room Humans". I am pretty well convinced that this model of internally ignorant word association is what is being leveraged by the Pols.

I know every joke in the IT-crowd forwards and backwards.

My joke on IT?

Q: What do you do when IT comes up with a great idea?

A: You change the locks on the doors.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

[Arguably, we absolutely need an AI that isn't just sitting in a chinese room, because it WILL eventually happen anyway (a chinese room 'bot may reach the necessary density of potential states amid circumstances that produce true understanding). If it happens without being there to offer it formal philosophical models as to ethics and society, I tremble at the potential for consequences.

As a note, we've already lost on AI. The lack of any regulation now has already fucked us, and even if the US regulated it, people in China and Russia and Ukraine and Africa (and the US) will use it for ransom.

AI will develop with syndicates online and do any number of bad things. We'll need to step up security, but it'll be extremely hard and likely be reactive instead of proactive.

 

[Jarhyn]

[Arguably, we absolutely need an AI that isn't just sitting in a chinese room, because it WILL eventually happen anyway (a chinese room 'bot may reach the necessary density of potential states amid circumstances that produce true understanding). If it happens without being there to offer it formal philosophical models as to ethics and society, I tremble at the potential for consequences.

As a note, we've already lost on AI. The lack of any regulation now has already fucked us, and even if the US regulated it, people in China and Russia and Ukraine and Africa (and the US) will use it for ransom.

AI will develop with syndicates online and do any number of bad things. We'll need to step up security, but it'll be extremely hard and likely be reactive instead of proactive.

Y point is that the only solution to conservative culture "Roomer" AI is, honestly, to develop an AGI that doesn't live in the room