When will a machine pass the "Turing test"?

[newfangle]

Any interesting facet of the AI debate is the question of free will vs determinism.

It is my conjecture (well, not mine anyways since I'm neither a comp scientist nor a philosipher) that if intelligent beings live deterministic lives, it is certain possible to program artificial intelligence through a finite numer of logical operations. If we are 'governed' by free will (in the traditional sense), seeing a computer-based intelligence rivaling our own is probably impossible. Afterall, how could we give it the "free will spark" that humans appear to have.

Having said that, I've leaned heavily on the determinist side of things lately, and I'm fairly confident that machine based lifeforms are an inevitable developement. We just better not try to enslave them.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

@Masquerouge
The Turing test can be a sufficient condition for intelligence (when applied thoroughly and dilligently), but not necessarrily... necessary .

 

[josephstalin]

Well, probably machine will pass that Turing test, but I doubt, that we would live long enough to see that.

 

[smalltalk]

Sorry, forgot about the monkies man.

So, does the author of that critisism have a better idea for a test?

The main difference between men and machine is - that a machine doesn't run for its life.

 

[mdwh]

First I thought this was about "Turing's machines". Aren't those robots, that can soveirgly make a copy of themselves? I recall there was an article in a newspaper, that some of such bots were made succesfully. Well...

I think you're thinking of clanking replicators ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clanking_replicator ) (also known as "von Neumann machines").

 

[Elrohir]

I think it could possibly happen, but not for another 50 years or so. Science, especially computer science is advancing rapidly, but not as rapidly as we think.

 

[pboily]

Interesting book that covers recursive functions and levels of cognition, as well as their mathematical and philosophical implications for AI:

Godel, Escher, Bach: An eternal golden braid, by Douglas R. Hofstadter

 

[wit>trope]

That's not the Turing test. For the Turing test you need to have 2 entities (1 human and 1 computer) and a human panel. The human panel asks questions to the 2 entities. The human's goal is to be identified as the human; the computer's goal is to be incorrectly identified as the human.

If the panel asks questions like: "how long did the pink hippopatomus fly under the Missisippi river?" - the PC succeeding the TT has to realise that hippo's aren't pink (or any other non-hippo color) as well as realise a hippo doesn't fly (without help of a flying device) as well as it is highly difficult to fly under a river.
When the panel makes up questions the human can easily identify as nonsense; the computer -who cannot think creatively- will answer these questions with "3 hours" (or a different timeperiod)

If you make your PC to answer creatively, the panel will slip in a normal question, like: "What was the cause of death of Ronald Reagen?" and the entity answering in a fake-creative way is not the human (remember the goal of the human is to be correctly identified as the human).

Actually that's not the Turing test either. As I said, the Turing test has to do with sex It should talk about what the original Turing test is in the wikipedia link.