Personality

It's more difficult to open up the brain of an alien to decide whether it's alive. You have to base it off of the outside

I think it's OK to try to decide it from the outside. I'm just against vague criteria like "if it looks like it is, then it is."

I think defining intelligence is a very interesting question. My definition would be that it's the capacity of solving general problems. That could be determined from the outside, presenting problems to the bot/alien/creature. Deep Blue, who defeated Kasparov, could certainly solve chess problems, but nothing else. I think that's too limited to consider it true intelligence. Our bots don't even know the simplest rules of logic, so you couldn't call them intelligent, even if one of them can fool a human for half an hour.

We're forgetting the true question put forth by Turing. It was this: 'Can machines think?' Turing invented the test specifically to define the word 'think' (as it pertains to machines), not 'intelligence.'

Fooling a human for half an hour is many times easier than fooling a human who is specifically administering the Turing test for a mere two minutes.

The biggest problem with the Turing test is that it will rule out any machine who does not think as a human thinks. Or one that spits out words faster than a human can.

*puts on glasses and looks up* Yep, this is way over my head.

And yes Butterfly Dream, I'll make sure that doesn't happen again.

I always thought that "intelligence" and "capacity to think" were more or less the same thing. If you believe it's something different, please explain what's the difference.

What is exactly "administering the Turing test", anyway? I always thought it was supposed to be just chatting with the bots.

It originally came from a game where a man and a woman would write messages to a third person, and that person would try and guess who was who. The man could pretend to be a woman, and visa versa. Turing thought that this game could be used on computers, and if the computer could succesfully trick the other person, it was to all intents and purposes intelligent.

The problem with the word "intelligence" is that it is too easy to believe "smart" is implied. 'Capacity to think' should include the slightly to moderately stupid.

Science has no definition or explanation for thinking, so testing such a thing is impossible. Intelligence has long been defined as "being like a human" which of course is very biased. There is a long tradition of thinking in the scientific community that humans are the only beings on earth capable of logic, thought, emotion, and reason. Thus, most likely it was implied that an "intelligent machine" that "thought" was human-like. This bias was most likely far more pervasive in the time when Turing developed his ideas.

Without truly understanding thought and intelligence, the best we can hope for is a test to fool humans into thinking an AI is a human. This is precisely what we have, though the contest uses the larger terms.

Well what is interesting about all this is that bots end up having to prove themselves more then apes do. I think that at last guess the chimps were up to 500 total words in their vocabulary. I guess they are proof of the old saying "It's not what you got but how you use it>"

Maybe I'm a chimp, but I've already been fooled several times on here. On a different topic, my bot just made it to senior and I am so proud.

The thing is, chimps can do a lot of things that bots can't. For example, they rememeber things much better and they are capable of some simple logic. For example, if you say: "The banana is in the box. The box is in the room" and then you ask: "Is the banana in the room?" they will answer "yes".

By the way, linloth, have you been trying to fool bots into believing that you are a bot? You had a chat with my bot and at some point you said: "I remember you. You are..." You got me totally confused.