Turing Test
Instead of "can machines think?" we should ask "can machines play the imitation
game/pass the turing test?"
- uhm, why? how are these similar?
- perhaps so we can give machines tasks that require thinking? perhaps
to decide if machines are deserving of rights?
-why play the imitation game then?
- Turing thinks more behaviouristically, so if you perform behaviours
of thinking then he thinks you're thinking
- Turing wants to test solely thinking, so he wants to get rid of any outside
factors that are separate from thinking (e.g. beauty, running, singing, dancing),
and focus solely on its ability to think
- 2 interpretations
- strong interpretation: if a machine passes the turing test, it
qualifies as thinking
- weak interpretation: if a machine passes the turing test, and if we
don't have other evidence for or against it being a thinking machine, we should
treat it as though it thinks
turing kind of endorses both, but the weaker one is more defensible. the
stronger one is more interesting though.
Turing's definition of Machine:
- turing's working definition consists of 3 elements: storage,
executive unit, control unit.
- wants to restrict his definition to machines that are non-human. but
he wants to future proof it, so he doesn't want to time lock it to just his time.
ergo an expansive definition of what a machine is more interesting
- he primarily focuses on discrete state machines
- he even drops a turing machine diagram on page 440
- when talking about the capabilities of digital computers, you only
need to talk abt turing machines because of the Church-Turing thesis!
- brief recap:
- instead of asking "can machines think?" we should ask "can machines DIE
BECAUSE I CAN"T TYPE FAST NOUGH FUCK
- math objection :)
- the Godel result only applies to a specific kind of questions ( godels
incompleteness theorem, which says that there are true sentences in arithmetic
which we cannot prove)
- turings real response is that humans are also limited, so why pick on
machines? (e.g. we are measuring thinking, not human thinking. humans are limited
too, so why pick on machines' lack of empirical data, thats mean)