Chinese Room Experiment and Turing Test mentioned by Charlie in episode 10 of the 4th season of Numb3rs
It is the correct definition. Turing test is language independent, and since charlie wanted to connect it with the Chinese room argument, he explained turing test with Chinese language!
this is the chinese room… it enlarged the topic recalling the turing test but he’s not completely right
It isn’t it’s the chinese room
For being all of 30 seconds long, that was a pretty good sketch of Searle’s “Chinese Room” thought experiment. I mean, what do you expect, an explanation of Turing’s motivations for suggesting a behavioristic test of A.I., a brief history of A.I. theory between him and Searle, and then Searle’s multi-step argument that includes the infamous thought experiment?
When that same crime show goes into detail about the information, yes they do. And when those details happen to be completely inaccurate, the general public, thinking they’ve learned about the subject, will be utterly confused when they hear about it in an actual situation, or be embarrassed when they attempt to speak about it. Even if it never comes up in their day to day life, going around believing false information cannot be good for anyone.
Haha that’s fucking bullshit They managed to conflate two loosely related things into one clusterfuck of nonsense
Chinese, the best and most unbreakable secret code in history!
“You see there was this scientist named Alan Turing who ordered Chinese food and ate it in this room…”
Yes, just like people get information from Fox “news”
because people get information about computers from 30 second clips on crime shows?
The guy isn’t explaining the turing test, he’s explaining an argument against it called the chinese room thought experiment.
My brain is melting trying to combine these two things in the way HES saying it…….but what if……the man was also typing in RUSSIAN…..thus proving that……chinese….and russian…..arent computers? …….
That is NOT a Turing test!!!
turing test is a matter of whether AI can genuinely be human intelligence or will it always be virtually different and an approximation; the chinese room is a question of if a human could be transcribing symbols in a manner where the human does not know the actual language but answers according to certain rules, why can’t this be virtually the same as in terms of logic, a computer trained to respond accordingly? in other words, the machine is not showing intelligence, but following parameters.
The Chinese room never made any sense to me. Here’s my thought experiment: Give words to an organ made of atoms, since the atoms don’t understand what the words mean, the organ can’t either – Reductio ad absurdum.
Chinese room argument is an argument against strong AI. That is, translation from one language to another does not necessarily mean comprehension by the machine; it’s just matching symbols with a key. Turing test is simply a test to gauge whether an AI program can convincingly communicate like a human. If a Chinese room experiment was run well enough, it might fool a user and therefore pass the Turing test, for example.
We have reason to be slightly annoyed at things like this and the CSI Miami “VB GUI INTERFACE” They contribute to the public’s idiocy, because they get false information on a topic they may be interested in.
LISP! LAMBDA FUNCTIONS! I don’t even care that it’s not actually a Turing test being described.
Wow, that wasn’t an accurate description of the Turing test OR the Chinese room!
You must be logged in to post a comment.