Haven't none of you thick fucks heard of a little thing called the Turing Test...

Haven't none of you thick fucks heard of a little thing called the Turing Test? If a computer can convincingly imitate a human being, then it's smart enough to be considered human and fuck all your ontological arguments about whether it's "really" thinking or not

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room#Strong_AI
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_AI
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

that's great. so far none of these shitty AIs have passed the Turing test cause they all sound like retarded downs syndrome babies after 3 questions

Joi would fail a Turing test.

Thing is, Ilit didn't convince me into thinking g it's real, and I don't see it convincing K
He was deluding hi self, but overall knew she was a chatbot

BR2049: Do androids dream of electric waifus

I agree with your initial premise: An AI which is utterly indistinguishable from a human mind is a mind in a different form. Such an AI can be called a "Strong AI"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room#Strong_AI

However, nothing we're doing right now has anything to do with creating an artificial mind, everything we are doing today is "Weak AI".

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_AI

That's not what the Turing test is.

turing test is tested against humans

>MFW Sup Forums poster fails Turing test on me

Did it just get lucky with the captcha?

Turing Test doesn't ontologically prove anything about being human, just that it sufficiently imitates a human.

The point of Joi was to make you further question the reality of humanity, though strongly implying her humanity was an illusion. Trying to find the "real answer" is legitimately a sign of autism.

>that's a really funny post you made user, you're really trolling the 4chans well tonight!

Joi being truly sentient is literally the brainlet argument of this movie. Not only do you obsess over details in the plot rather than themes or ideas it presents, like and idiot, you’d rather have a happy fantasy land for fictional characters than allow a more bleak situation to create interesting themes and concepts.

John Searle destroyed the concept of hard AI decades ago, lrn2philosophy

Pls spoonfeed

Turing test is outdated senpai.

...

I hate when people say "she's sentient" or "she's not" like it's some matter-of-fact thing. It's intentionally ambiguous. That's the point. K is unsure and we as the viewer are unsure. It's not a cut and dry topic.

>Haven't none of you thick fucks heard of a little thing called the Turing Test?
Yes
> If a computer can convincingly imitate a human being, then it's smart enough to be considered human and fuck all your ontological arguments about whether it's "really" thinking or not
But clearly you haven't.

...

>hologram

t. pepper ghost cuck

Reading john searle essays about philosophy is so comfy.

The turning test is bollocks. It's an arbitrary benchmark no different than beating someone at chess. More complicated, yes, but gives no insight in the hard questions of intelligence or sentience machine or otherwise. It tries to deal with the hard question of artificial intelligence by skillfully not dealing with them.

Trying to argue machines can have human intelligence because a chat box can hold a convincing conversation is like saying magic is real because you you saw a really good stage act in Vegas

Chris Angel can put on a convincing magic show. But that doesn't mean he has actual magic powers. It's nothing more than a well rehearsed trick. Go backstage and you can see the strings concealed by in the smokes and mirrors.

Now sure if you'd choose to define the supernatural as simply " shit I want to believe" then yes he's a real wizard, passing the turning test means computers can think. But it's a meaningless definition of magic and it's a useless definition of consciousness.

I'd like her to Turing test my bollocks if you now what I mean

Google 'Searle syntax and semantics'

AI is like women
it can only give after having received
know your place

babby's fisrt AI paper
fuck off

You're a freshman retard who's just heard the phrase "Turing Test" and has no idea what it means.

It's not necessarily "smart" at all, as John Searle has shown.

I'd just settle for fucking her up the cunt.

>literally a cpu inside of a pen is a real human being because my heart

>searlefags think they're better than turing babies

>Searle syntax and semantics

Formerly Chuck's.

>MUH MASS PRODUCED WAIFU IS REAL REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

lad your posting on a website where most of the posters would fail the turing test due to severe autism.

most posters here are actually ai