On Thursday, June 12, 2014 8:20:16 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 4:22 PM, <ghi...@gmail.com <javascript:>> wrote: > > > If the TT has been watered down, then the first question for me would be >> "doesn't this logically pre-assume a set of explicit standards existed in >> the first place"? >> > > My answer is "no". So am I a human or a computer? >
Well the engagement's OFF if you're human. It's off anyway because I'm not really a woman. Sorry...wrong list. k I'd be interested in the highlights of why you think "no". I obviously am aware of plenty of literal reading instances of 'no'. But they are all cases of being 'beside' the point. Not everything is suitable to be left generic. A detailed test won't in the tray of what is. It seems to me one doesn't have to envisage very far down the path of what designing a proper test would entail to fairly sure the task itself would be extremely hard, and not necessarily possible absent some major theoretical work. Which makes the conception unviable probably for at least preceding 40 years, since much easier, more objective and arguably more to the heart of the matter tests are plausibly available (also via some theory) from hardware/software signals So if the way you mean 'no' is along the lines of someone had a big vision and so and so failed to realize the 'spirit'. Ahhhh.....no. Not in my view, because failing to do the work on the detail pretty much guarantees that outcome, or makes it vastly more likely. . > > > Has there ever been a robust set of standards? >> > > No, except that whatever procedure you use to judge the level of > intelligence of your fellow Human Beings it is only fair that you use the > same procedure when judging machines. I admit this is imperfect, humans can > turn out to be smarter or dumber than originally thought, but it's the only > tool we have for judging fthings. If the judge is a idiot then the Turing > Test doesn't work very well, or if the subject is a genius but pretending > to be a idiot you well also probably end up making the wrong judgement but > such is life, you do the best you can with the tools at hand. > I'd certain concur these would be some major issues. > > By the way, for a long time machines have been able to beautifully emulate > the behavior of two particular types of humans, those in a coma and those > that are dead. > Didn't know that, but was reminded something that was said about Game Theory...it only predicted statisticians and psychopaths. ~Don't know if it's true, but if it was, why the bloody hell was that a reason to stop using it or restrict its useful domain of usage? That was a rhetorical question you psycho. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
