Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

jakeXT

(10,575 posts)
Sun Jun 8, 2014, 02:16 PM Jun 2014

Computer passes 'Turing Test' for the first time after convincing users it is human

A ''super computer'' has duped humans into thinking it is a 13-year-old boy to become the first machine to pass the ''iconic'' Turing Test, experts have said.

Five machines were tested at the Royal Society in central London to see if they could fool people into thinking they were humans during text-based conversations.

The test was devised in 1950 by computer science pioneer and Second World War codebreaker Alan Turing, who said that if a machine was indistinguishable from a human, then it was ''thinking''.

No computer had ever previously passed the Turing Test, which requires 30 per cent of human interrogators to be duped during a series of five-minute keyboard conversations, organisers from the University of Reading said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10884839/Computer-passes-Turing-Test-for-the-first-time-after-convincing-users-it-is-human.html

41 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Computer passes 'Turing Test' for the first time after convincing users it is human (Original Post) jakeXT Jun 2014 OP
Wow. malthaussen Jun 2014 #1
I, for one, welcome our computer overlords. Hissyspit Jun 2014 #8
Colossus: The Forbin Project Ichingcarpenter Jun 2014 #10
I saw that in TV as a kid. Loved it. Hissyspit Jun 2014 #12
It was on youtube for a while Ichingcarpenter Jun 2014 #14
Definitely. Hissyspit Jun 2014 #15
Loved that movie wryter2000 Jun 2014 #29
Stick around. The next challenge is to get Republicans to pass the Turing Test. nt Xipe Totec Jun 2014 #9
snarf BlancheSplanchnik Jun 2014 #30
I'd love to see a transcript of the conversation. - n/t Jim__ Jun 2014 #2
ME TOO!!!!!! Bigmack Jun 2014 #3
You can try it yourself, if you can get through muriel_volestrangler Jun 2014 #4
I've heard that the transcript is unimpressive paulkienitz Jun 2014 #32
But can it pass the Voight-Kampff test? flying rabbit Jun 2014 #5
Let me tell you about my mother shenmue Jun 2014 #18
A tortoise. What's that? frylock Jun 2014 #33
I frequently convince as many as 75% of the people I interact with that I'm human phantom power Jun 2014 #6
:) shenmue Jun 2014 #19
This message was self-deleted by its author Hissyspit Jun 2014 #7
On another note: Watson had to be purged of data from Urban Dictionary Ichingcarpenter Jun 2014 #11
LEGO Turing Machine struggle4progress Jun 2014 #13
too much free time jakeXT Jun 2014 #20
Alan Turing: The Enigma machine struggle4progress Jun 2014 #16
Yuri Matiyasevich on Alan Turing and Number Theory struggle4progress Jun 2014 #17
Diophantine... xocet Jun 2014 #24
My Collaboration with Julia Robinson (Yuri Matiyasevich) struggle4progress Jun 2014 #25
That is cool. Thanks for the link. n/t xocet Jun 2014 #26
Can it do the Kessel Run in 12 parsecs? OnyxCollie Jun 2014 #21
Didn't it tip them off when it kept asking where to find Sarah Connor? tclambert Jun 2014 #22
Lol, 30 percent... Helen Borg Jun 2014 #23
The notion that this means the computer is "thinking" is laughable. robbob Jun 2014 #27
I have developed my own definition of intelligence: DetlefK Jun 2014 #31
If and when the computer cares, how would you be able to tell? FiveGoodMen Jun 2014 #34
self-awareness and "mind" are nowhere in sight... but paulkienitz Jun 2014 #37
Once it can comprehend enough of its surroundings to solve real-world problems... FiveGoodMen Jun 2014 #40
I flunk Turing tests TrogL Jun 2014 #28
K&R. Overseas Jun 2014 #35
best headline about this: "Media fails to pass Turing test" paulkienitz Jun 2014 #36
This is NOT TRUE, unfortunately. It's been discredited. MADem Jun 2014 #38
Yes, and according to Massimo Pigliucci, there were 3 judges, 1 was fooled. Jim__ Jun 2014 #39
This headline is wrong. JackRiddler Jun 2014 #41

Ichingcarpenter

(36,988 posts)
10. Colossus: The Forbin Project
Mon Jun 9, 2014, 03:25 AM
Jun 2014

Might be remade with Ron Howard directing and Will Smith starring.

The 1969 movie

When the executives at Control Data Corporation found out that Universal was planning a major movie featuring a computer, they saw their chance for some public exposure, and they agreed to supply, free of charge, $4.8 million worth of computer equipment and the technicians to oversee its use. Each piece of equipment carried the CDC name in a prominent location. Since they were using real computers - not just big boxes with a lot of flashing lights - the sound stage underwent extensive modifications: seven gas heaters and five specially-constructed dehumidifiers kept any dampness away from the computers, a climate control system maintained the air around the computers at an even temperature, and the equipment was covered up at all times except when actually on camera. Brink's guards were always present on the set, even at night. The studio technicians were not allowed to smoke or drink coffee anywhere near the computers.


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064177/trivia?ref_=tt_trv_trv

muriel_volestrangler

(101,149 posts)
4. You can try it yourself, if you can get through
Sun Jun 8, 2014, 05:21 PM
Jun 2014
A version of the computer programme, which was created in 2001, is hosted online for anyone talk to. (“I feel about beating the turing test in quite convenient way. Nothing original,” said Goostman, when asked how he felt after his success.)
...
The test, organised at the Royal Society on Saturday, featured five programmes in total. Judges included Robert Llewellyn, who played robot Kryten in Red Dwarf, and Lord Sharkey, who led the successful campaign for Alan Turing's posthumous pardon last year.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/computer-becomes-first-to-pass-turing-test-in-artificial-intelligence-milestone-but-academics-warn-of-dangerous-future-9508370.html

paulkienitz

(1,295 posts)
32. I've heard that the transcript is unimpressive
Wed Jun 11, 2014, 11:31 AM
Jun 2014

and that you end up wondering how people could have been fooled.

Computers still fail at actually comprehending English. But once they do, I think we'll have to conclude that this amounts to intelligence, because the other criteria are turning out to be too easy.

Note that intelligence and consciousness are entirely separate questions here. The former is within sight, while the latter still leaves us baffled as to how we'd even make a start.

Response to jakeXT (Original post)

struggle4progress

(118,034 posts)
17. Yuri Matiyasevich on Alan Turing and Number Theory
Mon Jun 9, 2014, 10:19 AM
Jun 2014

Yuri Matiyasevich solved Hilbert's tenth problem -- to devise an algorithm to determine in a finite number of operations whether a diphantine equation is solvable in integers -- negatively in 1970, by showing that such an algorthm could be used to solve the halting problem for Turing machines, so cannot exist

robbob

(3,514 posts)
27. The notion that this means the computer is "thinking" is laughable.
Tue Jun 10, 2014, 05:06 PM
Jun 2014

You can program a computer to win at chess. You cannot create a computer that CARES whether or not it wins at chess.

What we have created is the ability to mimic human behavior. Self awareness, "thought", "mind"; this is another issue altogether, one which I don't know if we will ever (or perhaps should ever WANT to) be able to create.

DetlefK

(16,423 posts)
31. I have developed my own definition of intelligence:
Wed Jun 11, 2014, 07:30 AM
Jun 2014

"The capacity to become insane."

Insanity is in this case defined as 1. acting against preprogrammed behavior, 2. acting irrational.

A possible proof of intelligence would be the construction of a piece of art (expressing an abstract concept with material means): Crafting a statue has no physical influence on the environment, apart from the waste of its resources. Therefore crafting a statue is irrational and therefore it is a sign of intelligence.

paulkienitz

(1,295 posts)
37. self-awareness and "mind" are nowhere in sight... but
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 03:54 AM
Jun 2014

"thought" is another matter. If a machine can do rational problem solving with real-world problems that require comprehension of what it sees and hears around it, then I'd say that constitutes thought and intelligence, even when consciousness is absent.

FiveGoodMen

(20,018 posts)
40. Once it can comprehend enough of its surroundings to solve real-world problems...
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 11:45 AM
Jun 2014

How long before it notices the effects of its own actions?

paulkienitz

(1,295 posts)
36. best headline about this: "Media fails to pass Turing test"
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 03:38 AM
Jun 2014

They successfully convinced unqualified judges they were talking to a poor foreign kid with very limited English.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
38. This is NOT TRUE, unfortunately. It's been discredited.
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 09:52 AM
Jun 2014
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140609/07284327524/no-supercomputer-did-not-pass-turing-test-first-time-everyone-should-know-better.shtml

....
Okay, almost everything about the story is bogus. Let's dig in:
It's not a "supercomputer," it's a chatbot. It's a script made to mimic human conversation. There is no intelligence, artificial or not involved. It's just a chatbot.
Plenty of other chatbots have similarly claimed to have "passed" the Turing test in the past (often with higher ratings). Here's a story from three years ago about another bot, Cleverbot, "passing" the Turing Test by convincing 59% of judges it was human (much higher than the 33% Eugene Goostman) claims.
It "beat" the Turing test here by "gaming" the rules -- by telling people the computer was a 13-year-old boy from Ukraine in order to mentally explain away odd responses.
The "rules" of the Turing test always seem to change. Hell, Turing's original test was quite different anyway.
As Chris Dixon points out, you don't get to run a single test with judges that you picked and declare you accomplished something. That's just not how it's done. ...

...Oh, and the biggest red flag of all. The event was organized by Kevin Warwick at Reading University. If you've spent any time at all in the tech world, you should automatically have red flags raised around that name. Warwick is somewhat infamous for his ridiculous claims to the press, which gullible reporters repeat without question. He's been doing it for decades. All the way back in 2000, we were writing about all the ridiculous press he got for claiming to be the world's first "cyborg" for implanting a chip in his arm. There was even a -- since taken down -- Kevin Warwick Watch website that mocked and categorized all of his media appearances in which gullible reporters simply repeated all of his nutty claims. Warwick had gone quiet for a while, but back in 2010, we wrote about how his lab was getting bogus press for claiming to have "the first human infected with a computer virus." The Register has rightly referred to Warwick as both "Captain Cyborg" and a "media strumpet" and has long been chronicling his escapades in exaggerating bogus stories about the intersection of humans and computers for many, many years.

Basically, any reporter should view extraordinary claims associated with Warwick with extreme caution. But that's not what happened at all. Instead, as is all too typical with Warwick claims, the press went nutty over it, including publications that should know better. Here are just a few sample headlines. The absolute worst are the ones who claim this is a "supercomputer.".....

Jim__

(14,045 posts)
39. Yes, and according to Massimo Pigliucci, there were 3 judges, 1 was fooled.
Thu Jun 12, 2014, 10:11 AM
Jun 2014

An excerpt from his column:

Except, of course, that little of the above is true, and it matters even less. First, let’s get the facts straight: what actually happened [3] was that a chatterbot (i.e., a computer script), not a computer, has passed the Turing test at a competition organized by the Royal Society in London. Second, there is no reason whatsoever to think that the chatterbot in question, named “Eugene Goostman” and designed by Vladimir Veselov, is sentient, or even particularly intelligent. It’s little more than a (clever) parlor trick. Third, this was actually the second time that a chatterbot passed the Turing test, the other one was Cleverbot, back in 2011 [4]. Fourth, Eugene only squeaked by, technically convincing “at least 30% of the judges” for a mere five minutes: there were three judges, one was fooled. Fifth, Veseloy cheated somewhat, by giving Eugene the “personality” of a 13-yr old Ukrainian boy, which thereby somewhat insulated the chatterbot from potential problems caused by its poor English or its inept handling of some questions. As you can see, the whole thing was definitely hyped in the press.

...


Turing proposed his famous test back in 1951, calling it “the imitation game.” The idea stemmed out of his famous work on what is now known as the Church-Turing hypothesis [6], the idea that “computers” (very broadly defined) can carry out any task that can be encoded by an algorithm. Turing was interested in the question of whether machines can think, and he was likely influenced by the then cutting edge research approach in psychology, behaviorism [7], whose rejection of the idea of internal mental states as either fictional or not accessible scientifically led psychologists for a while to study human behavior from a strictly externalist standpoint. Since the question of machine thought seemed to be even more daunting than the issue of how to study human thought, Turing’s choice made perfect sense at the time. This, of course, was well before many of the modern developments in computer science, philosophy of mind, neurobiology and cognitive science.
Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Science»Computer passes 'Turing T...