Hype_logo the creative publishing network Nav_explore Aboutconvzne + join Holographic Universe Sign up Log in
ZINES ||| Top Rated | New | Random
Explore more >
Awards: 2 198/518

Tests For Cyborg vs Human

Nov 29, 2011 • 3 comments • 2326 views

The Duck Test 

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it PROBABLY is a duck.


If it looks like a human, walks like a human, speaks like a human, then it probably is a human.



The Turing Test



Turing proposes a test inspired by a party game known as the "Imitation Game," in which a man and a woman go into separate rooms, and guests try to tell them apart by writing a series of questions and reading the typewritten answers sent back. In this game, both the man and the woman aim to convince the guests that they are the other. Turing recreated the game as follows:


Turing test is a test of a machine's ability to demonstrate intelligence. It proceeds as follows: a human judge engages in a natural language conversation with one human and one machine, each of which tries to appear human. All participants are placed in isolated locations. If the judge cannot reliably tell the machine from the human, the machine is said to have passed the test. In order to test the machine's intelligence rather than its ability to render words into audio, the conversation is limited to a text-only channel such as a computer keyboard and screen.


The test was introduced by Alan Turing in his 1950 paper Computing Machinery and Intelligence


Response to the Turing Test


... as has been pointed out, we need not convince the pigeons that we’re a pigeon, if all we want is to fly. AI need not get an A’s in natural language in order to share intel with the in-crowd. So in the interests of détourning Turing, we offer the following Test. Simply answer the questions and we will determine whether you think. We already know you’re artificial.


Because between the steroids and the silicon and the Prozac and the prosthetics and the Apps and the internet and the pesticides and the petroglyphs and the memes and the synthgenes and the kittenball entanglements of text and 3G, we augment always and everywhere.


Take the test at the website.


The Chinese Room Experiment



The Chinese Room argument, devised by John Searle, is an argument against the possibility of true artificial intelligence. The argument centers on a thought experiment in which someone who knows only English sits alone in a room following English instructions for manipulating strings of Chinese characters, such that to those outside the room it appears as if someone in the room understands Chinese. The argument is intended to show that while suitably programmed computers may appear to converse in natural language, they are not capable of understanding language, even in principle. Searle argues that the thought experiment underscores the fact that computers merely use syntactic rules to manipulate symbol strings, but have no understanding of meaning or semantics. Searle's argument is a direct challenge to proponents of Artificial Intelligence, and the argument also has broad implications for functionalist and computational theories of meaning and of mind. 


The Other Minds Reply to The Chinese Room Experiment : “How do you know that other people understand Chinese or anything else? Only by their behavior. Now the computer can pass the behavioral tests as well as they can (in principle), so if you are going to attribute cognition to other people you must in principle also attribute it to computers. ”


Searle's reply to this is very short: we presuppose that other people have minds in our dealings with them, just as in physics we presuppose the existence of objects. Critics hold that if the evidence we have that humans understand is the same as the evidence we might have that a visiting alien understands, which is the same as the evidence that a robot understands, the presuppositions we may make in the case of our own species are not relevant, for presuppositions are sometimes false. For similar reasons, Turing, in proposing the Turing Test, is specifically worried about our presuppositions and chauvinism.


If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands.

- Douglas Adams Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency


Schrödinger's cat. Douglas's duck. Heidegger's hammer.

The Minds of Machines

Namit Arora considers the complexity of consciousness and its implications for artificial intelligence.

11.29.11 •
Great Markoff - I knew it wasn't a complete list (how could I have forgotten Schrodiner's Cat), but I was inspired simply by the Duck Test over breakfast today. Will definitely read the Namit Arora article soon. BTW, "Douglas's Duck" - is that the same quote I have there at the end of article, or do you have something else in mind.
11.29.11 •
Nope. I was referring to your mention of Douglas's duck. You'll get to the hammer when you read the article. Enjoy!
11.29.11 •
leave comment at bottom
submitting ...