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

Covertackle

Premiership Player
Jan 26, 2012
3,963
2,217
Ipswich
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Melbourne Dees
Closer and closer we get to 'terminator'. Life imitating art. Human like supercomputer. Advanced robotics. Sky net...its all there.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...-time-after-convincing-users-it-is-human.html


alan-turing_2774520b.jpg

Alan Turing Photo: AFP

By Hannah Furness, and agencies
1:06PM BST 08 Jun 2014
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.
But ''Eugene Goostman'', a computer programme developed to simulate a 13-year-old boy, managed to convince 33 per cent of the judges that it was human, the university said.

Professor Kevin Warwick, from the University of Reading, said: ''In the field of artificial intelligence there is no more iconic and controversial milestone than the Turing Test.
''It is fitting that such an important landmark has been reached at the Royal Society in London, the home of British science and the scene of many great advances in human understanding over the centuries. This milestone will go down in history as one of the most exciting.''
The successful machine was created by Russian-born Vladimir Veselov, who lives in the United States, and Ukrainian Eugene Demchenko who lives in Russia.
Mr Veselov said: ''It's a remarkable achievement for us and we hope it boosts interest in artificial intelligence and chatbots.''
Prof Warwick said there had been previous claims that the test was passed in similar competitions around the world.
''A true Turing Test does not set the questions or topics prior to the conversations,'' he said.
''We are therefore proud to declare that Alan Turing's test was passed for the first time.''
Prof Warwick said having a computer with such artificial intelligence had ''implications for society'' and would serve as a ''wake-up call to cybercrime''.
The event on Saturday was poignant as it took place on the 60th anniversary of the death of Dr Turing, who laid the foundations of modern computing.
During the Second World War, his critical work at Britain's code-breaking centre at Bletchley Park helped shorten the conflict and save many thousands of lives.
Instead of being hailed a hero, Dr Turing was persecuted for his homosexuality. After his conviction in 1952 for gross indecency with a 19-year-old Manchester man, he was chemically castrated.
Two years later, he died from cyanide poisoning in an apparent suicide, though there have been suggestions that his death was an accident.
Last December, after a long campaign, Dr Turing was given a posthumous Royal Pardon.
 

hellboy1975

All Australian
Sep 25, 2010
744
655
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...-first-time-everyone-should-know-better.shtml

Okay, almost everything about the story is bogus. Let's dig in:​
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. It "beat" the Turing test here by "gaming" the rules -- by telling people the computer was a13-year-old boy from Ukraine in order to mentally explain away odd responses.
    4. The "rules" of the Turing test always seem to change. Hell, Turing's original test was quite different anyway.
    5. 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. If someone claimed to have created nuclear fusion or cured cancer, you'd wait for some peer review and repeat tests under other circumstances before buying it, right?
    6. The whole concept of the Turing Test itself is kind of a joke. While it's fun to think about, creating a chatbot that can fool humans is not really the same thing as creating artificial intelligence. Many in the AI world look on the Turing Test as a needless distraction.
 

Covertackle

Premiership Player
Jan 26, 2012
3,963
2,217
Ipswich
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Melbourne Dees
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...-first-time-everyone-should-know-better.shtml

Okay, almost everything about the story is bogus. Let's dig in:​
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. It "beat" the Turing test here by "gaming" the rules -- by telling people the computer was a13-year-old boy from Ukraine in order to mentally explain away odd responses.
    4. The "rules" of the Turing test always seem to change. Hell, Turing's original test was quite different anyway.
    5. 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. If someone claimed to have created nuclear fusion or cured cancer, you'd wait for some peer review and repeat tests under other circumstances before buying it, right?
    6. The whole concept of the Turing Test itself is kind of a joke. While it's fun to think about, creating a chatbot that can fool humans is not really the same thing as creating artificial intelligence. Many in the AI world look on the Turing Test as a needless distraction.
Wow..
 

Pessimistic

Cancelled
30k Posts 10k Posts HBF's Milk Crate - 70k Posts TheBrownDog
Sep 13, 2000
86,852
42,951
Melbourne cricket ground. Australia
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Horks
Fooling humans seems a pretty trivial thing to me.

Develop a program to analyse the posts and responses of bigfooty posters.

It then posts and responds in the same way the poster would do. We ARE that predictable. That is self evident.

Strangers regularly posting in the same places on the same subjects in a text format has dragged the challenge of the turing test back to the completely possible imo. Unknowingly responding to a machine, thinking its a human posting, would be nothing unusual today, we accept this premise so much.

In turings day, the mere communication via a keyboard or whatever would be strange. Now its so commonplace if such a machine were perfected, the machine could perform untold masquerades and scams. In fact it wouldnt need to. Not having a fixed lifetime it could just gain funds and influence just by patiently waiting a few decades
 

little graham

Brownlow Medallist
10k Posts
Sep 18, 2013
17,752
11,820
AFL Club
Adelaide
Sydney bloods is the best poster on big footy.


Ha, computer just got a virus.
 

JuddsABlue

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 17, 2009
8,626
5,674
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
By 2040 a computer will be more powerful than every human brain on the planet. Could we see a tech explosion. How fast could they learn and how much?

I'm not sure, I dont really understand computers to a high detail though my basic understanding is a computer can only do what we give it power to do, so solving the answers to questions we dont have the answers to seems like a big ask

the idea of a conscious computer capable of its own thought and thinking process is another thing, but will it ever really understand the world around it to answer very complex things and answer complex questions?

Theres a big difference between asking a computer to solve a maths problem, because once you teach a computer maths all it needs is power to generate solutions. To then ask a computer a question without a fixed structed answer is another thing
 
Apr 7, 2012
18,188
13,947
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Coney Island, GWS, The Exers!
By 2040 a computer will be more powerful than every human brain on the planet. Could we see a tech explosion. How fast could they learn and how much?

not really we are fast approaching the stage where we just can't make mechanical chips anymore powerful.
In addition we are nowhere near making computers that can actually think and learn. so far they are really great at math but thats it. a computer can be a billion times more powerful than every living thing on earth and without the programing to back it up, its still nothing more then a very fast calculator.

quantum computers might change everything but even when we reach the stage where we just can't physically make chips anymore powerful, programing won't be anywhere near capable of making them able to actually "learn" smoke and mirrors to mimic such feats is the best we've been able to demonstrate.

we are nowhere near the point of actual learning machines, we can make programs that make it "look" like their learning but what is happening is a mathematical formula that tells the machine what responsible to choose.

Now this can make a machine great at math, it can make a machine that can drive a car perfectly down a long winding icy road. but thats all just math its the programer which gives the machine this ability. there is no machine thats ever surpassed the boundaries of its programing.
 
Sep 19, 2007
12,951
7,062
adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
not really we are fast approaching the stage where we just can't make mechanical chips anymore powerful.
In addition we are nowhere near making computers that can actually think and learn. so far they are really great at math but thats it. a computer can be a billion times more powerful than every living thing on earth and without the programing to back it up, its still nothing more then a very fast calculator.

quantum computers might change everything but even when we reach the stage where we just can't physically make chips anymore powerful, programing won't be anywhere near capable of making them able to actually "learn" smoke and mirrors to mimic such feats is the best we've been able to demonstrate.

we are nowhere near the point of actual learning machines, we can make programs that make it "look" like their learning but what is happening is a mathematical formula that tells the machine what responsible to choose.

Now this can make a machine great at math, it can make a machine that can drive a car perfectly down a long winding icy road. but thats all just math its the programer which gives the machine this ability. there is no machine thats ever surpassed the boundaries of its programing.
How Good would it be if you could say to a computer "how do you cure cancer" and it gives you an answer. Not sure if i was misled but i remember seeing something about computers coming up with possible drugs based on what it knows from millions of inGredients and their chemical properties.
 
Apr 7, 2012
18,188
13,947
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Coney Island, GWS, The Exers!
How Good would it be if you could say to a computer "how do you cure cancer" and it gives you an answer. Not sure if i was misled but i remember seeing something about computers coming up with possible drugs based on what it knows from millions of inGredients and their chemical properties.

It would be good, the problem with computers atm is that when you get right down to it, it's just a fancy calculater.

Take your example. "Computer how do I cure cancer"

Now if programmed right a powerful enough computer could come up with the most efficient treatment for example we now have several options in pill form that fight cancer.

In this case the computer knows from a database which chemical compounds are used in cancer drugs and simulate different combinations of them, for the most stable and effective model.

But let's say the tests on cannabis actually do cure cancer. A computer could never even think to use cannabis in its modelling because classification would be listed as illegal narcotic medical use: glaucoma, pain relief.

The computer can never think of anything new, the computer could find the best result of existing treatments because all its doing is simulating the result of thousands upon thousands of drug combinations in effect it's shortening the work humans have to do to find stable effective treatments.

Now don't get me wrong this would speed up research dramatically. But the computer has no understanding of things, it can not actually learn, only run calculations.

And that is why the computer cannot find something that humans wouldn't have thought of, because it relies on human input for everything.

The problem we have is this concept that the computer can have information we don't or figure things out that we can't.

This is a myth, take for example deep blue the computer that ruined chess. Now all deep blue does is calculate every possible action that the opponent can take and as a result chooses the most correct move possible.

A sound feat, until you realise known of this is learned, it's all programed a human sat down and inputted every single possible chess move, they programed the rules, they programed board, the pieces everything.

All the computer does is take that information and run a bunch of chess games virtual to find the move that is the best case of that scenario.

Deep blue ran something like 200 million moves per second, even with all that power the computer couldn't win every game, this is because the computer doesn't actually think. It just calculates. It should also be noted that between games a human actually sat reprogrammed deep blue to adjust for kaspeirvos(sp) moves, because the computer would have found his moves as insignificant in terms of statistical likelihood in unorthodox moves resulting in a win, a key reason why the machine lost the previous year.

There has even been speculation that IBM even cheated to achieve victory in 97 suggesting that people were making adjustments mid match.
 
Apr 7, 2012
18,188
13,947
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Coney Island, GWS, The Exers!
Rubbish cant even beat the best chess players yet

Why do just make stuff up?

Kramnik (world champion at the time) vs deep Fritz 06 result kramnik lost 4-2 (4 draws 2 losses) with DF limited to only calculating 8 million moves per second and restricted to only calculating 5 moves ahead at a time. With no reprogramming between games.

Computers have also won both man vs machine world tournaments.

The only time Humans can beat competition grade chess programs nowadays is when they are limited in hardware restricting the speed.

In 09 a program running on a mobile phone qualified for a grandmaster tournament. There's a reason the man vs machine grandmaster tournament hasn't been held since 05 it's because the champs refuse to play now because they can't win.

As per my previous post this doesn't at all make a computer "smart" only a very good calculater. The "brain" is the programmer, an example of this is desktop chess "games" that even on their impossible settings get annihilated by pros as they aren't programmed anywhere near as well as the tournament machines that have chess masters, maths geniuses and the best programmers in the world working on them.

It's no longer a contest, still take that program and apply it to flipping a coin and it loses 7 out of 10 games.

Why? Because the program works on statistics which means after around 50,000 or more flips the statistics become stable. The coin will land 53% to 47% and for a machine that works on best case scenario with no next step it knows that 53% beats 47% and so it chooses 53% everytime.

In order to win a coin toss programmers had to introduce a randomiser because straight odds weren't suited to winning a coin toss.
 
Oct 23, 2014
38,592
44,471
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Melbourne Hawks, NY Rangers
Rubbish cant even beat the best chess players yet

A super computer was devised, consisting of a grid of computers to defeat humans on Jeopardy. It even learned to read questions non-literally, which is key to understanding the questions on that show.

In the showdown with the all-time Jeopardy champion the computer won by a nose after dominating early.
 

CountryRace

Norm Smith Medallist
Suspended
Oct 25, 2014
5,683
2,879
https://archive.org/details/WarIsARacket
AFL Club
Fremantle
A super computer was devised, consisting of a grid of computers to defeat humans on Jeopardy. It even learned to read questions non-literally, which is key to understanding the questions on that show.

In the showdown with the all-time Jeopardy champion the computer won by a nose after dominating early.

the sex-cyborgs are going to be good
 
Apr 7, 2012
18,188
13,947
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Coney Island, GWS, The Exers!
why would i make things up? the world is so interesting

last i heard Kasparov beat deep blue 4-2. Then i stopped paying attention for a decade or two.

its too much like terminator, when computers beat the best chess masters

You really expect anyone to believe you were not only aware of the first match but so familiar with it that you knew the result and yet had no clue at all about the rematch a year later?

Even layman are aware of the 97 rematch it's the most famous chess match in history.
 
Apr 7, 2012
18,188
13,947
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Coney Island, GWS, The Exers!
Chess history is not well know by the general public

And the outcome of that match is, most won't know the details such as names date score. Etc.

But everyone knows about "that match where the computer won" it was as much about the development of computers as it was about chess.

Just look at the comments in this thread, the general opinion on computers vs man at chess has been framed ever since that match. (that humans can't beat computers)

And yet you want to claim the exact details of 96 and at the same time didn't know 97 rematch happened..... The match that has had dozens of books, documentaries, hell even thesis written about it from dozens of different fields of study.

And yet you expect people to believe you knew the score, the names, hell even the spelling of the Russian champs name.

But you didn't know 97 happened. The most famous match in history, you didn't know about. Yet you can recall the details of the first match that only people into chess and computers know about?
 

CountryRace

Norm Smith Medallist
Suspended
Oct 25, 2014
5,683
2,879
https://archive.org/details/WarIsARacket
AFL Club
Fremantle
I know bobby fisher
Deep blue v Russian
Ilyumzhinov and the aliens, and not much else

Again, I think you will find few people know about first time CPU beat human in the game. I. Certainly was not aware of the most famous match
 
And the outcome of that match is, most won't know the details such as names date score. Etc.

But everyone knows about "that match where the computer won" it was as much about the development of computers as it was about chess.

Just look at the comments in this thread, the general opinion on computers vs man at chess has been framed ever since that match. (that humans can't beat computers)

And yet you want to claim the exact details of 96 and at the same time didn't know 97 rematch happened..... The match that has had dozens of books, documentaries, hell even thesis written about it from dozens of different fields of study.

And yet you expect people to believe you knew the score, the names, hell even the spelling of the Russian champs name.

But you didn't know 97 happened. The most famous match in history, you didn't know about. Yet you can recall the details of the first match that only people into chess and computers know about?

I played chess for many years. To be honest with you, about the only date re chess I can remember is 1972 with Spassky and Fischer. Can probably reel off the world champions up until about Kasparov then I'm all at sea. Perhaps I can remember the Fischer date 'cause I watched a doco on the event a year or so back. BTW my favourite chess player = Tal
 
Back