Kelsey Rinella
Julie GoldbergWow. Yes. #AI
Stabby Narwhal 
@Julie But poor Tim!
šš¦ššš¤ 
teledyn šWe were warned, but that trick never works
Perhaps worth a side note that Minsky, whom I also never liked even before I knew who I was arguing with, is the Clever Boy behind the Desert Storm cruise missiles, yknow, those supersonic death sticks that hit the wrong target or outright failed 65% of the time
Š¬Ī»āĪ»@Julie Hurricanes and wildfires are neither intelligent nor conscious, yet they wreak havoc.
A subset of the economy could become self-sustainable, without human input, and IMO there lies the danger.
down daemon@Julie betting the prof got that idea from one of the first episodes of Community
Octavia Con Amore 
Succubard's Library@Julie @Gaolaitch more broadly, we're not just really good at but lean heavily into anthropomorphisation 
it has pretty positive effects for us (as a society) overall, but we're definitely getting to see one of the down-sides of it 
it has pretty positive effects for us (as a society) overall, but we're definitely getting to see one of the down-sides of it 
š šairchild š@Julie To the OP's point, though, our dumbass rush to make AI our cuddly robot friend is rooted in a good thing: empathy. The elephant in Tim's classroom is that the other half were likely sociopaths.
mudgielumpkins@Julie
How do you recognize consciousness in anything? Including other animals, humans included?
Why assume that another thing be assumed not to be conscious, no matter how apparently capable of problem solving, perception, deception, interpretation, and many myriad other "human" capabilities? We have no way to determine that our own thoughts and feelings are more than bio-electrical impulses, and come down to our programming. An AI shouldn't be assessed more or less critically.
To me this whole scenario strikes me as an analog of church-led geocentrism -- Despite mounting evidence to the contrary, people insist that it simply cannot be that these constructs might have internal experiences like our own, because it upsets our own sense of uniqueness and our place in the world.
"I know I have consciousness because I experience it..." > " I know other things have similar biology to me, so they must also have a conscious experience like me" > " This other thing does not have similar biology/hardware to me, therefore it's experience is different from my own" > "It's perceived experience is different from my own, therefore it is not conscious".
Sorry for the diatribe. Its a good thing when a post generates thoughtful reactions :)
tyx@mudgielumpkins @Julie
I'd really like to see all that snobbish neuroscience guys juggling vaguely-defined words like "consciousness" or "qualia" to be ridiculed and put to shame, when it turns out that there is no other consciousness and mind than just language.
I'd really like to see all that snobbish neuroscience guys juggling vaguely-defined words like "consciousness" or "qualia" to be ridiculed and put to shame, when it turns out that there is no other consciousness and mind than just language.
Flaming Cheeto@Julie I learned from Ex Machina that the new Turing test is: can the construct sexually manipulate a human.
swopeThere are plenty of ways to manipulate humans, but if they installed your mind in a sexdoll body then one route to manipulation is probably a lot shorter than the others.
@PizzaDemon @Julie
Even Naive Bayes chatbots were able to do this. And dating sites used them to imitate high F:M ratio.
Even Naive Bayes chatbots were able to do this. And dating sites used them to imitate high F:M ratio.
garrett@Julie I'm always surprised people still give a hoot about the Turing test. It's just proof that human beings see other humans everywhere. I think about the 1960's chatbot that people got emotionally connected to. lol
Ramsey Nasser@Julie we literally see faces in clouds!
trusty falxter š§ 
OCR Bot@flxtr
.) Joseph Fink @āplanetoffinks.bsky.social 22h
y It turns out this whole time that the Turing
Test was the wrong way to think of it.
Thinking a chatbot is alive is not a test of
how good the chatbot is, but of your own
ability to think of other human beings as real
and complete people
Ā© 12 2 120 @ā 516 eee
e Greg Stolze @āgregstolze.bsky.social 11h
I heard some professor put googly eyes on
a pencil and waved it at his class saying "HI!
I'm Tim the pencil! I love helping children
with their homework but my favorite is
drawing pictures!"
Then, without warning, he snapped the pencil
in half.
1/2
OD 3 ty 108 @ā 245 SOG
Greg Stolze
@āgregstolze.bsky.social
When half his college students gasped,
he said "THAT'S where all this Al
hype comes from. We're not good at
programming consciousness. But we're
GREAT at imagining non-concious things
are people."
2/2
warning low flying owls@Julie His name is Steve, not Tim. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mn-X090DpOE
Community - Steve the Pencil
pmorinerie
The Turing test was never a test for whether or not something is alive. It's a test for whether or not something is intelligent in a way indistinguishable from humans.
Joel WirÄmu, PaulingTo be fair evolutionary it makes sense, the best model of the world your have is yourself. We are hard wired to be anthropromorphize. Up until now it's been the best pattern recognition trick humans have up their sleeves
Mari the Deer 
@pmorinerie "we're GREAT at imagining non-conscious things are people"
It's unfortunate that this also works in inverse. 
I see this and call it pareidolia -- like seeing a face on a Mars rock.
Humans are social animals and the penalty for not seeing a face or underestimating intelligence could be rejection from the group. So I can see why our brains are biased towards recognizing intelligence even with thin evidence.
Maybe it's easier to make the determination if they are providing ample negative evidence. Lol
Riley S. Faelan@pmorinerie What a sadist.
You DON'T break toys with faces.
El SatƔnico Dr. Katow@pmorinerie I've said a thousand times: god did pass the Turing test centuries ago.
Alexander Knochel@pmorinerie There are more non-psychopathic ways to demonstrate this, but it probably.made an impression ;)
sj_zeroIt's definitely the anthropologic fallacy at work, and it's much easier to anthropomorphize an ai when it can form a sentence, which is typically a skill we associate with humanity and human intelligence.
@pmorinerie except that the Turing test also implements a control condition.
Andrea Franceschini š“āā ļø@pmorinerie it's partly the fault of people misinterpreting the Turing test and using it as a metric, to be fair. It never was about the ability of machines to be intelligent, it was always about their ability to deceive us into thinking they were. The test is for humans, not for machines. Also, Turing never meant it to become a "test." To him, this was a a thought experiment, and we just read too much into it and bent it to our needs.
Androcat@morpheu5 @pmorinerie Turing and Gƶdel are both very misunderstood.
Like, people thinking "Turing means that we just can't know if a program will halt" - which is obviously false.
We can not make one single algorithm that decides whether *any program at all* will halt.
Not the same thing.
We can determine whether a program will halt.
And we can even make an algorithm that decides whether a lot of programs will halt.
Fink 
OCRbot@fink
.) Joseph Fink @āplanetoffinks.bsky.social 22h
y It turns out this whole time that the Turing
Test was the wrong way to think of it.
Thinking a chatbot is alive is not a test of
how good the chatbot is, but of your own
ability to think of other human beings as real
and complete people
Ā© 12 2 120 @ā 516 eee
e Greg Stolze @āgregstolze.bsky.social 11h
I heard some professor put googly eyes on
a pencil and waved it at his class saying "HI!
I'm Tim the pencil! I love helping children
with their homework but my favorite is
drawing pictures!"
Then, without warning, he snapped the pencil
in half.
1/2
OD 3 ty 108 @ā 245 SOG
Greg Stolze
@āgregstolze.bsky.social
When half his college students gasped,
he said "THAT'S where all this Al
hype comes from. We're not good at
programming consciousness. But we're
GREAT at imagining non-concious things
are people."
2/2
Ann H@Julie @reseauxsansfil many of these same people simultaneously have trouble seeing entire groups of people as people too.
Hans Gerwitz@Julie I think Iād rather we err towards seeing humanity in objects than see humans as objects.
The vOICe vision BCI š§ šŖšŗ
Kiki Buber@seeingwithsound it feels like Turing just ran up against āThe Hard Problemā and took the easy way out tbh
normen@Julie Well, just to add another perspective to this: In some cultures, e.g. in Japan, its not uncommon to assign "spirit", "life", or whatever you want to call it, to inanimate things. Like robots, puppets or even plain objects. I guess the idea is more that your (already existing) spirit puts it in there though, so its a similar thing if you want.
@fink
.) Joseph Fink @āplanetoffinks.bsky.social 22h
y It turns out this whole time that the Turing
Test was the wrong way to think of it.
Thinking a chatbot is alive is not a test of
how good the chatbot is, but of your own
ability to think of other human beings as real
and complete people
Ā© 12 2 120 @ā 516 eee
e Greg Stolze @āgregstolze.bsky.social 11h
I heard some professor put googly eyes on
a pencil and waved it at his class saying "HI!
I'm Tim the pencil! I love helping children
with their homework but my favorite is
drawing pictures!"
Then, without warning, he snapped the pencil
in half.
1/2
OD 3 ty 108 @ā 245 SOG
Greg Stolze
@āgregstolze.bsky.social
When half his college students gasped,
he said "THAT'S where all this Al
hype comes from. We're not good at
programming consciousness. But we're
GREAT at imagining non-concious things
are people."
2/2
@fink
.) Joseph Fink @āplanetoffinks.bsky.social 22h
y It turns out this whole time that the Turing
Test was the wrong way to think of it.
Thinking a chatbot is alive is not a test of
how good the chatbot is, but of your own
ability to think of other human beings as real
and complete people
Ā© 12 2 120 @ā 516 eee
e Greg Stolze @āgregstolze.bsky.social 11h
I heard some professor put googly eyes on
a pencil and waved it at his class saying "HI!
I'm Tim the pencil! I love helping children
with their homework but my favorite is
drawing pictures!"
Then, without warning, he snapped the pencil
in half.
1/2
OD 3 ty 108 @ā 245 SOG
Greg Stolze
@āgregstolze.bsky.social
When half his college students gasped,
he said "THAT'S where all this Al
hype comes from. We're not good at
programming consciousness. But we're
GREAT at imagining non-concious things
are people."
2/2
jz.tusk
BrazMogu (i.e. Bruno Guedes)@Julie I'm very sure that was also a bit in Community, but I can't remember what the pencil was a metaphor for
Jo - piĆØce de rĆ©sistance@Julie I think ppl tend to treat others as objects. Rather than objects as people. It is abt not seeing ppl whole as Joseph Fink said.
We treat people as possessions & objectify them all the time to control, use, own, have rights over.
It is mainly neurodivergent/autistics, children, & cultures with animism like Shinto who think objects have anima.
Most humans tend to possess & not regard life, so seeing something like themselves in AI is not seeing humanity. Itās seeing objectification.
@pineywoozle ās #3WordNote
Andy Wood@Julie googley eyes
Potung ThulThis needs #AltText. Let me #Alt4You. This will take up 3 postings. (If only 2 postings, then awkward split.)
1/3:
Screenshot of blue sky post from @planetoffinks.bsky.social:
It turns out this whole time that the Turing test was the wrong way to think of it. Thinking a chatbot is alive is not a test of how good the chatbot is, but of your own ability to think of other human being as real and complete people .
../2
2/3:
Reply by @gregstolze.bsky.social:
I heard some professor put googly eyes on a pencil and waved it at his class saying "Hi! I'm Tim the pencil! I love helping children with their homework but my favorite is drawing pictures! "
Then, without warning, he snapped the pencil in half.
../3
Zekovski š§£@Julie
Hi !
Could you add alt text to this please ? I'd very much like to boost it.
Thank you.
(I think there's an automatic text reader for this in the menu.)
Alexandre Franke@Julie BRB gotta buy some pencils.
Andrea Grandi š¦@Julie I've seen this shared multiple times but I think I'm still missing the point. Could you explain to me like I'm 5 yr, please? Thanks šš»