Ethical / legal question

[Old Greg]

Where do you get that idea from? The Turing Test is in no way whatsoever a test of independent thought.

Are you implying that vetran may be an Artificial Cretinism, programmed to regurgitate tulipe from the Daily Mail in a series of logically unrelated posts?

[oracleslave]

Are you implying that vetran may be an Artificial Cretinism, programmed to regurgitate tulipe from the Daily Mail in a series of logically unrelated posts?

vetran has cloned Dim

[Old Greg]

vetran has cloned Dim

I think vetran may be a Dim-lite prototype, with sense of humour functions removed. The bad news is it's stuck here. The good news is it's too stupid to click on any of the links to escape into the WWW.

[vetran]

Where do you get that idea from? The Turing Test is in no way whatsoever a test of independent thought.

depends if you believe to imitate a human you should be able to 'think' like a Human. Does that make it a discrete intelligence? If you believe it was supposed to be a party trick then you seem to have missed his intent. Also as its still out there at the lowest level as the Loebner prize it seems there aren't any machine magicians up to the task

Turing simplified his parameters to make it possible to test, his intention though was clear :

"I propose to consider the question, Can machines think?""

[vetran]

does that make you SAS lite?

Resort to personal Insult and have a complete lack of argument?

If you read my comments again slowly, you might understand.

And yes Reasonable care :

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 Case summary

Lord Atkin:


"The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes m law you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer's question " Who is my ' neighbour ?" receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who then in law is my neighbour? The answer seems to be persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question."

Letting an elephant walk unescorted down a UK high street would probably fail the test of reasonable care.

now releasing a semi sentient being with the potential for harm without a babysitter - is that reasonable care?


Now if the being was full sentient and bypassed the reasonable precautions you had made - that would need new consideration surely?

[d000hg]

depends if you believe to imitate a human you should be able to 'think' like a Human. Does that make it a discrete intelligence? If you believe it was supposed to be a party trick then you seem to have missed his intent. Also as its still out there as the Loebner prize it seems there aren't any machine magicians up to the task

Turing simplified his parameters to make it possible to test, his intention though was clear :

"I propose to consider the question, Can machines think?""

Turing never said the test would define an entity's ability to think, or its right to be classed as alive, did he?

[BrilloPad]

BP was liable for the gulf oil spill

I was nowhere near there.

[Old Greg]

does that make you SAS lite?

Resort to personal Insult and have a complete lack of argument?

A fairly typical output.

[vetran]

Turing never said the test would define an entity's ability to think, or its right to be classed as alive, did he?

As I understand it He said it was too difficult to define, hence he suggested a test that would look for equality of performance.

A bit like saying 'Pink is the most beautiful Colour' its not possible to argue with that, its an opinion, to you Pink might be the most beautiful colour. To me it might be green however we can quantify pink and prove it has the same popularity as Green in some cases.

Stevan Harnard however suggested that it was a valid test and its simplicity belied its ability to identify thought.

The Turing Test Is Not A Trick: Turing Indistinguishability Is A Scientific Criterion

The real point of the TT is that if we had a pen-pal whom we had corresponded with for a lifetime, we would never need to have seen him to infer that he had a mind. So if a machine pen-pal could do the same thing, it would be arbitrary to deny it had a mind just because it was a machine. That's all there is to it!

If you believe we are very complex machines then the Turing test defines a point when other machines have caught up with us and can be considered in some way sentient. If you think we are something special with a magical spark then you probably believe in God then no the Turing test is just a party trick.

Remember 'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.'

[NotAllThere]

It would be up to the courts/legislators to decide whether passing the Turing test was sufficient to declare an AI a legal person. The only issue I see with using the Turing test is that it isn't hard to think of occasions where a human might fail the Turing test. Do we then deny them their rights? Probably not.