The infamously often cited "Turing Test" claims that when a computer can fool a person into thinking they are interacting with a person instead of a computer, then the materialist-sceinticistic ideologues can claim victory in having proved that human consciousness is a material artifact. I don't think that's really what Turing said - though his opacity in expression would be his fault - but it's what many a geek piously believes he said.
But that's not much of a test, reportedly one that Turing based on a game of gay male culture of his time in which, or so I read, you had to guess if someone was a woman or a particularly convincing female impersonator by getting them to answer questions.
Why wouldn't it make more sense to say that when a computer CAN FOOL ANOTHER COMPUTER, OR A PERSON CAN FOOL A COMPUTER then THAT "insight" would be more convincing proof of "artificial intelligence". Though, since they always follow whatever instructions People put into them, whether or not the results are what the human programmer anticipated, they might be considered to have failed that test. Even the testing program would be the result of that kind of human creation, ingenuity - only as good as the programmer who wrote the program, is a product of human minds which have to be able to transcend material causation to judge if the results were the right ones or the wrong ones.
Turing was very, very smart. But he could be victimized by his own ideological orientation just like every other person can, but which machines can't have unless people put them there.
No comments:
Post a Comment