Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> Instead, it is: given a history of moves, can you determine whether or not a computer was playing?

No, it's really not. For the Turing Test, the AI is meant to be adversarial—it's objective is to convince you that it is human.

AlphaGo's objective isn't to "play like a human," it is to win. If they gave it an objective of playing like a human, I'm sure AlphaGo could play in a way that would be indistinguishable from a human.

> Since they have access to the AlphaGo system, they can just calculate the probability that each move corresponds to one AlphaGo would make.

Peeking at the system/data is cheating. Obviously the person who sets up a Turing test knows which player is AI.




> If they gave it an objective of playing like a human, I'm sure AlphaGo could play in a way that would be indistinguishable from a human.

It could just play unbelievably bad and appear like a beginner. That wouldn't prove intelligent.

> Peeking at the system/data is cheating

Someone ignorant of computers would hardly ever assume a machine. Of course the omission of this rule would leave someone smarter than the computer.

If you talk statistics, IE the machine has to convince only a fair share of humans, the definition of the threshold is a problem. Intelligence would depend on the development of the society. I thought this is about an intrinsic value.

It's an interesting thought experiment, but hardly conclusive, just observational.


> It could just play unbelievably bad and appear like a beginner. That wouldn't prove intelligent.

Sure, which is why it's not a very good metric. The correct metric for looking at whether computational game intelligence has exceeded human capacity is that computers can consistently beat humans.

To be clear, I'm not convinced that we'll ever make a generalized intelligence which can pass the Turing Test. My point was merely that the fact that humans create the system is not a good argument for why it's impossible: in many domains, we can already create computer systems which vastly outperform ourselves.


I can only speak for chess, but one of the unsolved problems in computer chess is how to build a program that plays human chess of appropriate level.

It is very hard to dial down a ELO 3000+ program to 1800 level of a club player and not make it computer like.

What is usually done is lower the depth searched and add some random blunders but it is still obvious to a stronger player that it is a program.




Registration is open for Startup School 2019. Classes start July 22nd.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: