A philisophical question ... why do we care about a Turing test?

My question stems from the idea that as human beings, we are clearly less than perfect.

Now, we want to impose that lack of perfection onto others, as a way of not feeling denigrated or some other unconscious inferiority complex.

Thus, I see a Turing test geared towards getting machines to learn how to perform a 'white lie' or to pretend not to know something, like let's say an exact solution set for a Differential Eq, to protect one's appearance of being human ala 'Keeping Face'. Yet, from that perspective, idiot savants would look more like machines than humans, since they'd be great calculators, painters, etc but with limited 4 year old social skills.

In contrast, I'd prefer to be more 'machine' than human and have a photographic memory, 300 IQ, amazing physical strength, and the possibility of perpetual renewal. And then, in a society with more machines-like entities, the ability to lie and put on various social masks for approval, can fall by the wayside.

Jamie wrote:And then, in a society with more machines-like entities, the ability to lie and put on various social masks for approval, can fall by the wayside.

that's the normal human society we live in...

The Turing test is stupid/shit - it tests how good can a machine lie to be a human and not if a machine is intelligent
-> to test that a machine is intelligent, first it needs a test that can proof a human is intelligent -> and that's not an IQ test
Because if a machine responds like a human would, it doesn't mean the machine is intelligent - because it doesn't mean the human is intelligent

"first it needs a test that can proof a human is intelligent"

Exactly!

Thus, I have a bit of a controversial theory ... the reason why average folks are afraid (or creeped out) by an "Aiko" or really any 'Bot which looks or behaves human-like is that exposes the intrinsic failures in human beings.

With that in mind, I have little regard for those who hide behind their collective insecurities to tell our inventor friend, Le Trung, or anyone else that he's playing god instead of acknowledging the fact that perhaps it's better to focus the critical lens at oneself ... to better oneself.

Thus, imagine with all the women out there playing games to attract a "bad" boy investment banker, or what have you, and then, that opulent hedge fund guy decides that he could spend his million dollar bonuses on creating his own supermodel companion? It breaks the game and thus, shows people for what they are ... nothing special and completely replaceable.

Jamie wrote: ... nothing special and completely replaceable.

exactly this
and a robot can be programmed to be a better human than real humans

ico wrote:

Jamie wrote: ... nothing special and completely replaceable.

exactly this
and a robot can be programmed to be a better human than real humans

I think this is the real issue here.
A portion of mankind is fear that robots will become the humans that we can not be, possessing the qualities that humanity as a whole can not develop. And when I say "qualities" I say not only about robots being stronger or more agile. I also say it on moral and ethical qualities that humanity has left behind.

I never really could understand the purpose of Turin Test because we really were not able to understand what is really human intelligence.
Of course is nice that a robot give an answer that makes sense when asked about something ( a friendly interface - or something like that).
But how to compare two kinds of intelligence so different from each other?
And Why to compare these 2 intelligences?

Gilda wrote:I also say it on moral and ethical qualities that humanity has left behind.

maybe robots can teach them something about it
(maybe watch Appleseed - they are not robots but it applies to this principle)
People thing they are something better - especially retards thing that - so intelligent robots could show them in moral and ethics what a bunch of retards they just are...

so intelligent robots could show them in moral and ethics

Think about this ... why is it that humans spend so much time and energy on basic survival/nesting issues: work, housing, & finding a mate? I think in part it's because there's a sense of *lack* ala resource limitations out there, given our human paradigms.

On the other hand, a robotic society would have harnessed solar, geothermal, and other sources of power for easy survival. And part of that is that they are in effect, a result of technology. For us humans, we're more concerned about whether or not our energy stocks will provide enough dividend yield for retirement, along with our regular work which provides a steady income stream. The average yolk of society is backward looking and is still thinking like 19th century industrial age drones. Thus, I don't see ordinary human consciousness as something to emulate. I'd rather we have sophisticated 'Bots, pioneering a better way for us to live. If that eventually results in Skynet & the whole Sarah Conner chronicles well then so be it. Perhaps before then, we'd have the Ray Kurzweillian opportunity to merge our physiologies with that of machines so that we could survive J-Day.

Jamie wrote:Thus, I don't see ordinary human consciousness as something to emulate.

What's wrong with robots having moral and ethics ?
And why would someone want so emulate the crap of human consciousness, if then only the good and worth things.
It's quite essential even for a robot to have things like moral &co.

why would someone want so emulate the crap of human consciousness

Ok, looks like I'm preaching to the choir here.

Can you play devil's advocate and come up with meaningful scenarios, as in Robin William's "Bicentennial Man", where a hi-end robot would want to denigrate himself and be a pathetic wannabe fallible human with a hapless *need to belong* or have approval, from Congress or some other govt body, that he's a sentient human? Honestly, I didn't see the point in that film.

In "Bicentennial Man" he wasn't programmed like that, he should be like a servant and his new behavior was more like an error and then he made himself into something half biological to be more like a human. And as robot he was quite stupid and nothing special so to become more human like was an improvement for him - in some way.

An other example...Data (Star Trek)
He was among humans so he wanted be like them to maybe understand them and be more accepted by them.

If a robot would want to be human like then maybe because he just wants to understand it - and them he probably would only choose the good and useful things.
But to create a robot to be 100% human like is the worst thing someone could do.

But to create a robot to be 100% human like is the worst thing someone could do

I think that's part of the issue, the idea that being human as some sort of ideal.

I suspect that that's where the Judeo-Christian religious leanings kick in where in effect, there's a limited concept of man being created in the image of the divine and thus, there's a canon for how we're suppose to think and behave. Anything else would be a man rising against his creator and the modern Frankenstein (now Terminator) myth.

I wholeheartedly disagree with the above, I believe that it's the spirit which is immortal and the body is whatever the spirit needs to find expression in the plane of physical matter. And if that spirit can be encased in a cyborg body, then it's not a problem. And finally, whether or not a fully mechanical robot has consciousness, I'll leave that to the philosophers of the year 2200.