(Resending complete email - trying to do this on a phone.) On Tuesday, September 10, 2013, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> > > On Thursday, September 5, 2013, Craig Weinberg wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> My position would suggest that the more mechanistic the conditions of the >> test, the more it stacks the test in favor of not being able to tell the >> difference. If you want to fool someone into thinking an AI is alive, get a >> small group of people who lean toward aspberger's traits and show them >> short, unrelated examples in a highly controlled context. >> > > You accept, of course, that people with Aspbergers have feelings even > though they don't express them like everyone else? > > >> If you want to really bring out the differences between the two, use a >> diverse audience and have them interact freely for a long time in many >> different contexts, often without oversight. What you are looking for is >> aesthetic cues that may not even be able to be named - intuitions of >> something about the AI being off or untrustworthy, continuity gaps, >> non-fluidity, etc. It's sort of like taking a video screen out into the >> sunlight. You get a better view of what it isn't when you can see more of >> what it is. >> > It sounds like you're proposing a variant of the Turing Test. What would you say if the diverse audience decided the AI probably had feelings, or probably had feelings but different to most people's, like the Aspergers case? > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
