
Turing Test, Etc. (1992) - fouric
http://www.gigamonkeys.com/turing/
======
cgio
Interesting to see how views around AI evolve over the years. My opinion is
that AI from a Turing Test perspective or from a singularity pov is focusing
on the wrong things. My focus instead is on symbiotic intelligence (i.e. how
machines will change the way symbiotic people/technology societies operate.) I
have fragments of an unpublished paper I am working on, around these ideas,
here, for anyone interested

[https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxtoB2exHDnISjFDSEdCOEN1cDA...](https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxtoB2exHDnISjFDSEdCOEN1cDA/view)

------
andreasvc
The popularity of Searle's Chinese room argument has always bothered me. It's
not clear what he actually believes in. So the mind is not a computer, what is
it then? Something with "special causal powers"? What does that mean... And
presupposing a rule book that passes the Turing test is of course a very
dubious premise. I think arm chair philosophizing is ultimately cannot give
use clear answers to questions like this.

~~~
Houshalter
The Chinese room is a deeply confused thought experiment. It starts from the
(unstated) assumption that humans are magic, and all it asserts is that
computers can't be magic.

The argument even says that it might be possible to create AIs that are just
as intelligent as humans, and which behave exactly the same as humans. All it
suggests is that such AIs won't be magic. Unlike humans, which it assumes are
magic.

That anyone ever took this argument seriously is amazing and sad.

