Hacker News Reader

Comment by nurettin | Hacker News Reader

Turing explains that the machine could not give an "appropriately meaningful" answer to whatever is said in it's presence, which the "dullest of men" could do.

So the basic quality he seeks in a machine that could pass the so called turing test is a machine that produces meaning. That meaning comes from any mind that is intact or coherent. So unless we take the leap from making category deciders and inference machines to actually building minds, we won't get anywhere near his definition of a machine that is truly intelligent.

View on HN

Is this a real comment, or produced by an AI? I couldn't make sense of it. This is a genuine question.

I know people who talk like this, and the user history checks out. Either way, the comment is misinforming: Those quotes are from Descartes, not Turing, whose views as to whether machines could think were opposite. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-test

Right: the attribution to Turing felt completely wrong.

I think the cat’s out of the bag now and we really won’t know if we’re reading or responding to an actual human anymore.

Reading comments on the internet has nothing to do with the test tho. You have to be able to query the agent.

> You have to be able to query the agent.

That's what the "reply" button is for.

The whole thing was generated. Any specific reason you couldn't make sense of it? Any non-sequiturs? Would you prefer more monty python references?

I honestly can't tell if this was generated or not either. Where does the monty python reference come from?

FWIW:

- The ab nihilo mention of 'Turing explains' (explains what? where?) feels odd.

- The quotes are redundant, but seem designed to make the statement sound weighty.

- "It's" is a common grammatical error in corpuses, but not one likely to be made by any kind of practising philosopher.

- The concept of "meaning" is one implicitly eschewed by the Turing test, so the discussion of meaning here seems odd.

- The comment is circular: unless we build minds, we won't build things that pass the Turing tests, which are minds.

Well, I will dismiss all the nitpicky npc nonsense here and just repeat myself.

Are we trying to build minds? Or is all the effort going into building automated money savers that take away trivial jobs? That is the main point here.

The use of “quoted words” is strong evidence of GPT. It’s very fond of that rhetorical technique.

I'm not sure, my PhD advisor also uses "quoted words" very frequently in her writing. In GPT-3's defense, she is a prolific writer :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com