I doubt this is more accurate than humans are, or is that possible?
Wouldn't an AI that can be a judge in a Turing test be able to pass the Turing test?
Or is this just testing how "real" the voice sounds?
Wouldn't an AI that can be a judge in a Turing test be able to pass the Turing test?
Or is this just testing how "real" the voice sounds?
An oversimplified example: Being able to recognise someone and being able to draw a picture of their face (or pretending to be them) are not the same.
I changed my mind. I don't want the Red Pill anymore. Ignorance is bliss.
Not automatically, unless it had unlimited time and/or compute power. Verifying a potential solution seems to be much easier than generating a valid one. See also: P versus NP.
As a trivial example, if a speech synthesis system was emitting high frequency static, we wouldn't hear it at all, but would be trivial to detect with a microphone.
I fully expect software to be better at this than we are if there ever turns out to be a need for this sort of thing.
Yes, this is what will define 2017.
I imagine computers would be able to do quite well at judging a turing test heuristically. Passing it is quite a different matter.
That is taught in every CS algorithm course.