What would be the number one requirement?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jewel34
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jewel34

Guest
Q: what would be the number one requirement for a “machine” to pass the Turing test?
A: to be able to lie!

After all one of the first questions would be a direct approach, asking the tested one: “are you a human?”. And if the other party is not human, and admits it, then the game is over, it failed to be able to pretend that it is a human. Therefore the number one necessity to be able to emulate a human is dishonesty! Is this not sad?

But to be able to lie is not enough. A “machine” which is sophisticated enough to “pass” as a human, must have a very quick thought process. As such, if it is asked a complex mathematical question, it needs to “dumb down” its abilities, even making intentional errors; and thus pretend a certain level of stupidity!

A well-manufactured “Asimovian” robot, which is bound by the three laws of robotics could easily be “trapped” by its extreme benevolence, by always being kind and helpful toward “real” humans. So the next requirement is a certain level of cruelty, the ability to let down others!

Getting real depressing, doesn’t it? To be “human”, one needs to be dishonest, dumb and cruel? And we are the crown of creation?

What are your thoughts?
 
Jewel34 said:
if it is asked a complex mathematical question, it needs to “dumb down” its abilities, even making intentional errors; and thus pretend a certain level of stupidity!
Click to expand...
I’m not convinced that the above part that I quoted is correct, and I’d like to explain why I’m not convinced.

Doesn’t it depend on the design of the AI entity? When you buy an ordinary microcomputer with office software, you will get a calculator program and other accessories. However, even if we assume that the hardware of the AI entity includes an electronic computer at least as advanced as an ordinary microcomputer, how can you conclude that the software will include a calculator? Maybe the designer can be accused of omitting what the designer could have easily included, but the AI entity won’t have what the designer didn’t provide.
 
Jewel34 said:
Q: what would be the number one requirement for a “machine” to pass the Turing test?
A: to be able to lie!

After all one of the first questions would be a direct approach, asking the tested one: “are you a human?”. And if the other party is not human, and admits it, then the game is over, it failed to be able to pretend that it is a human. Therefore the number one necessity to be able to emulate a human is dishonesty! Is this not sad?
Click to expand...
I’d like to propose an alternative: persuade the machine that it is a human being. After all, it might not know enough about us to realize that it isn’t one of us. Now, if you’re going to object that it’s unethical to deceive a machine, not because of any harmful consequences to people, but purely because the machine itself is deceived, then maybe that particular machine is close enough to human for practical purposes that it hasn’t been deceived.

I didn’t ask any questions above, so I should ask: do you have any comments?
 
40.png
PseuTonym:
I’d like to propose an alternative: persuade the machine that it is a human being. After all, it might not know enough about us to realize that it isn’t one of us. Now, if you’re going to object that it’s unethical to deceive a machine, not because of any harmful consequences to people, but purely because the machine itself is deceived, then maybe that particular machine is close enough to human for practical purposes that it hasn’t been deceived.

I didn’t ask any questions above, so I should ask: do you have any comments?
Click to expand...
As I read this comment, I immediately remembered a very good science fiction story, titled: “Android”. Unfortunately I cannot remember the author, only the storyline.

The main character is an android, who believes that he is a human. The emulation was so perfect, that he has no idea about his artificial origin. He is aware of the existence of androids, but he considers them to be the “enemies” of humans. When he learns that he is one of them, he commits suicide by jumping out a window, so the unsuspecting humans would become aware of his artificial “innards”, and would realize that they have been infiltrated. His last thought is that he sacrifices himself for the humans and that is not something that a “machine” would ever do.

In the story there is no intentional deception, it just so happens that the emulation is too perfect.
 
Jewel34 said:
As I read this comment, I immediately remembered a very good science fiction story, titled: “Android”. Unfortunately I cannot remember the author, only the storyline.

The main character is an android, who believes that he is a human. The emulation was so perfect, that he has no idea about his artificial origin. He is aware of the existence of androids, but he considers them to be the “enemies” of humans. When he learns that he is one of them, he commits suicide by jumping out a window, so the unsuspecting humans would become aware of his artificial “innards”, and would realize that they have been infiltrated. His last thought is that he sacrifices himself for the humans and that is not something that a “machine” would ever do.

In the story there is no intentional deception, it just so happens that the emulation is too perfect.
Click to expand...
There is no intentional deception but it is a case of selfless self-deception!
 
Jewel34 said:
Q: what would be the number one requirement for a “machine” to pass the Turing test?
A: to be able to lie!

After all one of the first questions would be a direct approach, asking the tested one: “are you a human?”. And if the other party is not human, and admits it, then the game is over, it failed to be able to pretend that it is a human. Therefore the number one necessity to be able to emulate a human is dishonesty! Is this not sad?

But to be able to lie is not enough. A “machine” which is sophisticated enough to “pass” as a human, must have a very quick thought process. As such, if it is asked a complex mathematical question, it needs to “dumb down” its abilities, even making intentional errors; and thus pretend a certain level of stupidity!

A well-manufactured “Asimovian” robot, which is bound by the three laws of robotics could easily be “trapped” by its extreme benevolence, by always being kind and helpful toward “real” humans. So the next requirement is a certain level of cruelty, the ability to let down others!

Getting real depressing, doesn’t it? To be “human”, one needs to be dishonest, dumb and cruel? And we are the crown of creation?

What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...
Brain causes mind and syntax doesn’t suffice for semantics. Please read Chiness Room.
 
I think the movie, Blade Runner, has an android in it that does not realize it is a machine.
 
tonyrey said:
Unjustified dogmatism! How do you know we have only a body with a brain?

I prefer to be brainless rather than mindless. 🙂
Click to expand...
Read it this way: syntax doesn’t suffice for semantics :D. There is a piece of knowledge in dogmatism too.
 
No one pays attention. 🤷 This thread is NOT about the feasibility of the Turing test (and the Chinese Room thought experiment is lacking) but about the necessary behavior of the machine which would convince the human examiners that it is also human. And the machine would need to be able to lie, pretend that its is dumber than it is and would need to exhibit a certain amount of cruelty.
 
Jewel34 said:
No one pays attention. 🤷 This thread is …] about the necessary behavior of the machine which would convince the human examiners that it is also human. And the machine would need to be able to lie
Click to expand...
You say that as though there can be no doubt that it is unfortunate for a machine to have the ability to lie. What if Huckleberry Finn had been about a machine that used its ability to lie to save its human friend, an escaped slave? What if all of the masters were machines, and all of the slaves were human? Should I begin a thread with the title “Huckleberry Finn versus Immanuel Kant”? That’s not intended to be a rhetorical question, so please answer it. Huck might win.
 
40.png
PseuTonym:
You say that as though there can be no doubt that it is unfortunate for a machine to have the ability to lie. What if Huckleberry Finn had been about a machine that used its ability to lie to save its human friend, an escaped slave? What if all of the masters were machines, and all of the slaves were human?
Click to expand...
I don’t see the world in black-and-white. Sometimes there is a very good reason to lie, be it Huck Finn about Jim or lying to the Nazis about the whereabouts of hiding Jews. But in this case the question: “are you a human?” is just collecting information, which has no moral repercussions. Anyhow, this thread is not about examining the morality of lies.

It is a human trait to be able to lie. And thus, if a machine wishes to impersonate a human, it must be able to lie as well. Just like it must be able to pretend to be dumber than it is (the current chess playing programs beat the human world champions).
40.png
PseuTonym:
Should I begin a thread with the title “Huckleberry Finn versus Immanuel Kant”? That’s not intended to be a rhetorical question, so please answer it. Huck might win.
Click to expand...
That is up to you. 🙂
 
Jewel34 said:
Just like it [a machine] must be able to pretend to be dumber than it is (the current chess playing programs beat the human world champions).
Click to expand...
Back in the good old days when human beings surpassed the best chess playing programs in chess playing ability, we had to pretend to be dumber than we were when we wanted to pass ourselves off as machines. Nowadays, ordinary human beings cannot pass the 7UR1||9 test. However, in future, some human beings selectively bred for extra intelligence might be able to pass the test. (The test is named after a computer that will, in the future, invent the test.)
 
  1. To lie you have construct a subject (lie) which oppose the real subject (truth)
  2. This requires understanding the meaning of truth
  3. Computer work based on syntax
  4. Syntax does not suffice semantic (following chines room thought experiment)
  5. Computer cannot understand the meaning of truth
  6. Hence computer cannot lie
 
40.png
tonyrey:
I prefer to be brainless rather than mindless.
Click to expand...
Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? Let’s scoop out your brain and see how much “mind” will you have. Ready? I can hardly wait to see the result.
40.png
PseuTonym:
Nowadays, ordinary human beings cannot pass the 7UR1||9 test.
Click to expand...
That is simply not true. Ordinary humans will not pass a “Mensa-type genius test”, but that is not what the Turing test is all about. The Turing test is not about extraordinary intelligence.
40.png
Bahman:
  1. To lie you have construct a subject (lie) which oppose the real subject (truth)
  2. This requires understanding the meaning of truth
  3. Computer work based on syntax
  4. Syntax does not suffice semantic (following chines room thought experiment)
  5. Computer cannot understand the meaning of truth
  6. Hence computer cannot lie
Click to expand...
  1. Two fundamental questions: “What is understanding?” and “What is meaning?”. Suppose you have a conversation with someone. How do you know if your partner “understands” what you say?
  2. The Chinese Room experiment only proves that “understanding” is not reducible to the individual neurons or cells. But since no one asserts that, the thought experiment is irrelevant.
  3. Until you can give a proper definition of understanding and meaning, and show how it happens in human beings and why it cannot happen in a non-biological medium, this assertion is unfounded and premature.
 
Jewel34 said:
Getting real depressing, doesn’t it? To be “human”, one needs to be dishonest, dumb and cruel? And we are the crown of creation?

What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...
Turing called it the Imitation Game rather than a test. The machine’s objective is to fool the interrogator, so yes deception is key to playing the game.

The machine is isolated and communicates by texting, so it only needs to pretend to have human traits, it doesn’t actually need to possess them to win.

We are learning that many of our traits are also displayed by other species of social mammals, so I wouldn’t have thought they’re anything to be ashamed about. Wouldn’t it be something to celebrate if and when human ingenuity builds a machine that can win the game?
 
Jewel34 said:
Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? Let’s scoop out your brain and see how much “mind” will you have. Ready? I can hardly wait to see the result.

That is simply not true. Ordinary humans will not pass a “Mensa-type genius test”, but that is not what the Turing test is all about. The Turing test is not about extraordinary intelligence.
  1. Two fundamental questions: “What is understanding?” and “What is meaning?”. Suppose you have a conversation with someone. How do you know if your partner “understands” what you say?
  2. The Chinese Room experiment only proves that “understanding” is not reducible to the individual neurons or cells. But since no one asserts that, the thought experiment is irrelevant.
  3. Until you can give a proper definition of understanding and meaning, and show how it happens in human beings and why it cannot happen in a non-biological medium, this assertion is unfounded and premature.
Click to expand...
Here is another version of argument:
  1. To lie you have to construct a subject (lie) which oppose the real subject (truth)
  2. This requires semantic (understanding the meaning of subject)
  3. Computer work is based on syntax
  4. Syntax does not suffice semantic (following chines room thought experiment)
  5. Hence computer cannot lie
What meaning is “meaning” is a little tricky but you can find a clear explanation here.

And the main Chinese room outcome is “Syntax does not suffice semantic”. You can read the details on the provided link.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top