
There is no general AI: Why Turing machines cannot pass the Turing test - danielam
https://www.academia.edu/39880431/There_is_no_general_AI_Why_Turing_machines_cannot_pass_the_Turing_test?email_work_card=view-paper
======
gus_massa
> _But what ‘suﬃciently large’ and ‘suﬃciently similar’ mean, here, are
> questions of mathematics. We shall see that when these questions are raised
> in relation to those sorts of stochastic temporal processes which are human
> dialogues it becomes immediately clear that there are two insurmountable
> hurdles to realizing the scenario in which a machine would pass the Turing
> test, namely_

> _1\. that we could never have suﬃciently large amounts of data to train it
> because the variance in dialogue situations is as huge as the variance in
> human culture and behaviour, and_

> _2\. that the processes in question do not meet the conditions needed for
> the application of any known type of mathematical model._

The points 1 and 2 can be applied to chess, go, and StarCraft II. There is no
big enough set of all the variants of play and there is definitively no good
mathematical model. Anyway in these games one computer can play better than
humans.

Language has a bigger and more difficult space to model, but if the claim is
that these are the "mathematical reasons" to prove that machines can't pass
the Turing test, then the same "mathematical reasons" can be applied to
similar problems.

------
theamk
That may be more convincing if there were not a winner in Loebner Test every
year [0]

I am not saying that the paper is 100% wrong, and GA is possible, just
pointing thar the core premise is flawed.

[0]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loebner_Prize](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loebner_Prize)

