'Super computer' first to pass Turing Test, convince judges it's alive

Gawan

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
It's the first time since the Turing test was created in the 1950s and that a computer convinced the Jury that it is a human. What is funny that this computer was developed by a Russian who lives in the USA and a Ukrainian who lives in Russia.


Sydney morning Herald said:
A "super computer" has duped humans into thinking it was a 13-year-old boy to become the first machine to pass the "iconic" Turing Test, experts say.

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 World War II code breaker 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 program 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.

Veselov said: "It's a remarkable achievement for us and we hope it boosts interest in artificial intelligence and chatbots."

Professor 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."

This particular test involved 150 conversations between 30 judges, 25 humans and five chatbots, making it the biggest Turing Test ever.

Actor Robert Llewellyn, known for his role as Kryten in Red Dwarf, was one of the judges for the Turing test, tweeting afterwards "Turing test was amazing. Did 10 sessions of 5 minutes, 2 screens, 1 human 1 machine. I guessed correctly 4 times. Clever little robot fellow".

Goostman, who successfully fooled 29 per cent of his judges in 2012, is portrayed as a 13 year-old boy from Ukraine. His father works as a gynaecologist, and he owns a pet guinea pig. His designer's chose the age specifically for its suitability to the Turing Test. "Thirteen years old is not too old to know everything and not too young to know nothing", Veselov says, adding that it also means minor grammatical errors in the typing will be forgiven.

Professor 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 Turing, who laid the foundations of modern computing.

You can see more background about Goostman and even put him to the test with your own questions here.

AAP

_http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/computers/super-computer-first-to-pass-turing-test-convince-judges-its-alive-20140608-zs1bu.html
 
When I first read this release, I wondered if this same super computer would have fooled the same amount of people 50, 100, or more years ago. Even when talking with people today you cannot tell by the way they behave, think, or communicate, if they are not robots. Cynicism moment :evil:
 
It's an important milestone in the pursuit of artificial intelligence, not one that I'm terribly pleased to see. It is fascinating nonetheless. I get the feeling things will only accelerate from this point.

Gonzo
 
"The beginning of the end"?

Scary stuff for sure. Not true artificial intelligence, but certainly a link in the proverbial chain.

I suspect that true artificial intelligence, when it appears, will take over very, very quickly.
 
Lost Spirit said:
"The beginning of the end"?

Scary stuff for sure. Not true artificial intelligence, but certainly a link in the proverbial chain.

I suspect that true artificial intelligence, when it appears, will take over very, very quickly.

Yep and they are just powering through with all of their excitement at this "accomplishment". Can we learn more about ourselves before we create sentient beings that could potentially outsmart us. That just seems like a sensible thing to do.

It also brings this to mind.

Session 19 November 1994 said:
Q: (T) Did they lose control of this power?

A: It overpowered them the same way your computers will overpower you.

Interesting times indeed.
 
Yes, Interesting!..... This from the "Onion" This is the first time I've seen a story in print that says what these *Almost* Human Thinking Robots are Really For. "Step by Step"........

The Rest of the Sad Story Here
http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-law-enforcement-robot-can-wield-excessive-forc,36220/

New Law Enforcement Robot Can Wield Excessive Force Of 5 Human Officers

Each robotic unit reportedly contains an internal incinerator compartment capable of destroying almost any form of evidence that could implicate it in abuse.



HOUSTON—In an effort to enhance the agency’s capabilities while reducing the burden on its existing force, sources confirmed Friday that the Houston Police Department has developed a new line of law enforcement robots capable of wielding the excessive force of five human officers.

First dispatched by the HPD earlier this month, the tactical robotic units, known as the AP-12, are reportedly equipped with on-board mechanisms to target both criminals and innocent bystanders, and possess a variety of retractable instruments that allow them to effortlessly subdue and restrain up to four individuals at once. According to sources, just a dozen of the new robots will be able to collectively carry out the physical and psychological abuse typically spread out amongst the officers of an entire precinct.

“We have done extensive testing with the AP-12 and we can say that these units are capable of carrying out everyday police work just as proficiently as any member of our force,” said police spokesman Gerald McClintock, who explained that the machine can be deployed to nearly any scene to which law enforcement officials typically respond, be it dispersing peaceful protesters by blasting a 14-nozzle pepper spray cannon or reacting to reports of suspicious behavior by immediately striking the knees, face, and throat of a potential suspect up to 10 times harder than its human counterpart. “Thanks to these robotic units, our deputies can rest assured their work will be performed to the same standards we have always expected of our patrolmen.”

“In many ways, these robots’ actions are indistinguishable from those of our brave men and women in uniform,” McClintock added.

According to its designers, the AP-12 is outfitted with numerous features that make it ideal for abruptly resorting to extreme measures, including a highly sensitive motion detector that perceives most gestures as an act of resistance necessitating physical force. Additionally, the robots possess a powerful hydraulic grasping system, enabling them to repeatedly slam subjects of any size and weight against fences, dumpsters, and car hoods with previously unattainable levels of aggression.
 
mkrnhr said:
When I first read this release, I wondered if this same super computer would have fooled the same amount of people 50, 100, or more years ago. Even when talking with people today you cannot tell by the way they behave, think, or communicate, if they are not robots. Cynicism moment :evil:

Actually, I think this is a very valid point! The algorithms they designed have been made and heavily influenced by the current population, so it makes sense that tests will be positively biased towards towards the modern day average sample of people. In other words, it's likely that culturo-societal norms have been programmed into the AI which would make it appear more human-like to people who are influenced by and/or conform to those norms themselves. Add to that the tendency to project our own interpretations, and that the variance of the cultural influences would be much smaller between the programmers and the judges than either would be to difference between themselves and the average person, those results could a lot less significant than the first impression they give!
 
Sorry but I don't buy it. This test is absolutely meaningless as designed. Ask that "bot" an actual question that requires thought and logical deduction, memory, context understanding, and it will strike out. When you set no parameters, no controls, the test has no quantifiable meaning. You can't just have a conversation without guidelines and without evaluating specific psychological capabilities. The true turning test isn't to prove viability of a foreign 13 yr old, which allows them to ignore/excuse major blunders in understanding and speech - but a native adult speaker. It also isn't enough to fool 29% of the researchers, it has to be at least 50%, and the conversation should be longer than 5 minutes. And it would have to be researchers who aren't dull witted themselves, because some people are just very easy to fool and they don't even attempt to challenge the bot. I'll bet anything that a 5 year old would be much more capable than this bot, if you just ask the right questions or say the right things that force the human mind to think.

Unfortunately this is sensationalism. We'll get there someday, but right now, this is just to get media attention. Who knows, it may result in funding for AI research, and maybe that's the goal here.
 
SAO said:
Sorry but I don't buy it. This test is absolutely meaningless as designed. (...)
Unfortunately this is sensationalism. We'll get there someday, but right now, this is just to get media attention.
Indeed, I agree with SAO. There is nothing significant (no "signal") in this piece of news.
Who knows, it may result in funding for AI research, and maybe that's the goal here.
Another hypothesis : this announcement is to prepare the collective mind for the next appearance of "talking" AI.

BTW, I bet that real AI exist already, developped for instance by the NSA or Google, running on quantum computers, etc.
 
Back
Top Bottom