What line of questions would you use to determine if an opponent was an AI or a meat bag?
In real life (Blade Runner style) or over instant messaging?
In real life I’d ask regular questions but start behaving obnoxiously - picking my nose and flicking it in their direction, for example. Non-verbal clues would probably be a lot more telling in this hypothetical future I’ve just made up in my brain.
Over IM, I’d ask what their favourite movie was and then start quoting it so see if they joined in. I’d also use bad spelling and slang, hep cat.
There are a few ways to go about it. Of course, the point is to highlight human capabilities that are difficult to program. A few that come to mind:
[ul][li]Incorporate trivia and/or cultural references. Bonus difficulty if references are to foreign cultures or historical periods.[/li][li]Use wordplay in your responses, such as homonyms/homophones or other devices. Especially useful when used in conjunction with another item, such as the previously mentioned references.[/li][li]Another thing to do is to make heavy use of pronouns; it’s really hard to program subject resolution, particularly when dealing with natural language.[/li][li]Similarly, confuse the conversation with a variety of verb tenses or time frames.[/li][li]Probe multi-modal capabilities (colors, music, taste, etc.).[/li][li]Incorporate “back references” (that is, refer to topics or events that came up earlier) in the conversation. This forces the AI to do subject resolution in combination with maintaining a discussion memory.[/li][/ul]
I suppose one could simply launch into a “Who’s on first” routine too. 
Bill and Bob were working in a field, when he pushed him into a threshing machine.
:dubious:
To be fair, he said he had it coming.
Perhaps I’m being whooshed, but…are you really :dubious: about it? If so, you’re not putting enough thought into the point. Remember, the point is to confuse the thing; humans are really good at subject resolution.
Besides the possibility of making a sentence inherently ambiguous (particularly if using the pronoun “it” with multiple referents), there’s also the matter of computational complexity (cf. 3SAT as an NP-complete problem). The former would require the computer to ask for clarification, opening up many opportunities to confuse the program; the latter may, depending on complexity, result in noticeable time lag.
I thought this thread would be about passing a Turing test. Any good tips?
Here’s a tip. When Mr. Holden asks you about your mother, try not to shoot him.
So, is Voight-Kampff a Turing test?
I’d also pay attention to what type of stuff could fool Watson on Jeopardy. You’d be surprised about how many things on that list that he was able to handle.
I’m cramming for mine tomorrow, anyone know the difference between a turtle and tortoise?
Not really. I’m pretty sure the replicants *were *sentient by any Turing definition, they just weren’t empathetic in the same way humans are, and that’s what V-K tested.
Yeah, I know. Very impressive.
Although I have to say that I didn’t pay too much attention to Watson beyond the fact that it trounced the humans (excepting Rush Holt, who deserves props for holding his own). Can you point me to a decent analysis of its play/weaknesses (preferably not regular news sources, but more technical)?
But it it a true Turing Test if a human idiot can’t pass? Let’s say you and Subject J3 are discussing how llamas and alpacas are used for wool. You mention that llamas and camels are related and Subject J3 replies that “Camels have been around for years.”* “Aha!” you think, “This must be a computer because a human would have said ‘thousands of’ or ‘millions of’ years. The computer obviously was obviously refering to when we talked about the recent fad of cashmere sweaters.”
Great analysis, but you were really talking to Karl Pilkington.
- Actual quote from the Jordan show.
From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
Important to note: the test is not to see if a (human) idiot can fail, it’s to see if a machine can pass. Very different things. Also note that:
If you’re interested at all, you should really read Turing’s original paper, Computing Machinery and Intelligence; more than half of it is Turing raising and answering objections.