Brad Paulsen wrote:
...
Sigh. Your point of view is heavily biased by the unspoken assumption
that AGI must be Turing-indistinguishable from humans. That it must
be AGHI. This is not necessarily a bad idea, it's just the wrong idea
given our (lack of) understanding of general intelligence. Turing was
a genius, no doubt about that. But many geniuses have been wrong.
Turing was tragically wrong in proposing (and AI researchers/engineers
terribly naive in accepting) his infamous "imitation test," a simple
test that has, almost single-handedly, kept AGI from becoming a
reality for over fifty years. The idea that "AGI won't be real AGI
unless it is embodied" is a natural extension of Turing's imitation
test and, therefore, inherits all of its wrongness.
...
Cheers,
Brad
You have misunderstood what Turing was proposing. He was claiming that
if a computer could act in the proposed manner that you would be forced
to conceed that it was intelligent, not the converse. I have seen no
indication that he believed that there was any requirement that a
computer be able to pass the Turing test to be considered intelligent.
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=108809214-a0d121
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
