Of course, I might have said the same thing about some hypothetical “Internet” were I writing in Turing’s time. An estimate of 500 years to complete it seems to me far more reasonable. I consider the prospect of organising and completing such a project by 2029 to be remote, since this appears to be a project of greater complexity than any human project ever undertaken. Modelling (or emulating) the human brain, with something like 10 14 synapses, would be a software project many orders of magnitude larger than the largest software project ever done. Progress in improving our ability to design, generate and test software has been comparatively painfully slow.Īs IBM’s Fred Brooks famously wrote in 1986, there is “ No Silver Bullet” for software - nor is there now. However, his arguments don’t really work for software. Google’s director of engineering Ray Kurzweil at least has a real argument for 2029, based on Moore’s Law-type progress in technological improvement. All the dates before 2029 are in my view just silly. We will achieve AI in 1967 predicted Herbert Simon, or 2000 suggested Alan Turing, or 2014 with the Eugene Goostman program on the weekend, or much later. My view is that they are right, but that passing a genuine Turing Test would nevertheless be a major achievement, sufficient to launch the Technological Singularity – the point when intelligence takes off exponentially in robots. The Turing Test, even as envisaged by Turing, let alone as manipulated by publicity seekers, has limitations.Īs US philosopher John Searle and cognitive scientist Stevan Harnad have already pointed out, anything like human intelligence must be able to engage with the real world (“ symbol grounding”), and the Turing Test doesn’t test for that. what criterion would establish something close to human-level intelligence?.In general, it has not gone unnoticed that programs that mimic those with a limited behavioural repertoire, limited knowledge or understanding, or engage those who are predisposed to accept their authenticity are more likely to fool their audience.īut none of this engages the real issues of artificial intelligence today: Subsequent programs which fooled humans include “ PARRY”, which “pretended” to be a paranoid schizophrenic.
Weizenbaum left his program running at a terminal, which she assumed was connected to Weizenbaum himself, remotely. His secretary was fooled into thinking she was communicating with him remotely, as described in his 1976 book Computer Power and Human Reason.
ELIZA is still answering questions today.
0 kommentar(er)
