The Turing Test poisoned the minds of generations of AI enthusiasts, because its criteria is producing text that persuades observers it was written by a human.
The result? Generative AI text products designed to "appear real" rather than produce accurate or ethical outputs.
It *should* be obvious why it's problematic to create a piece of software that excels at persuasion without concern for accuracy, honesty or ethics. But apparently it's not.
@skry @schoolingdiana @intelwire Turing's original paper is about how behavioural testing is useless in determining intelligence. He never said, "use this test to determine if machines are intelligent". He meant the opposite: don't even bother, since you can never know if it is real intelligence or something pretending to be intelligent.
Thank you for that link. In recent years I have often shared @intelwire's frustration over AI/ML's obsession with the Turing test & the predictably problematic results, so it's good to roll back to Turing's actual paper!
But I'm not sure your conclusion is more valid than the pop-culture one. He clearly argues that "Can machines think?" is functionally equivalent to "can they imitate human responses to questions?" and then proposes machine learning theory & urges its exploration.
J.M. Berger
schoolingdiana
skry
szakib
Amelia Bellamy-Royds