A question.

[Age]

What is being demonstrated is the future we face, where it will be impossible to tell the real from the fake.

So, through evolution human beings have got to a stage, or level, that they can, literally, trick and fool "their" own 'selves' into talking with things that do not even exist, and this just gets passed of as, 'It is impossible to tell the real from the fake', and so be it.

Once upon a time when people were seen to be talking with a thing that did not even exist, and those people were trying to tell others that that thing does exist, and say I am talking with it 'now', those people usually got help in one form or another. But, now it appears that was is eventuating is that absolutely no one knows what is real from fake and so know one will be even able to help another anymore.

I am seeing and reading this wrong here?

In fact, I think it's already begun.

Back in recorded history there have been people having delusional experiences, and records of attempting to help them.

But now when this is being written it appears that help will one day be left for no one, as it appears as you are saying here, absolutely none of you will be able to tell the real from the fake, and so, literally, human beings will not even be able to help "themselves" let alone anyone else, right?

Unless you are communicating with someone face to face, I think it will be impossible to tell who or what you are interacting with.

So, concluding one way or the other, before telling which one is Correct first, could be a 'telling' sign of something.

As for 'now' I think it is still very possible to tell who and what I am interacting with.

[Trajk Logik]

If a machine can engage in a conversation with a human without being detected as a machine, it has demonstrated human intelligence.

However, if during engagement in a conversation with a human being one is claimed to be a machine, then what has this demonstrated?

What is a machine?

How are humans not machines, just made of different material - carbon vs silicon? Does the material you are made of make one a machine vs not a machine? If so, then what is special about the material that makes one a machine vs not a machine?

[promethean75]

Indeed we aks: is it the substance or the function of a system that characterizes it as a machine.

What creates the élan vital? Metabolism? Circuitry? What?

[commonsense]

If a machine can engage in a conversation with a human without being detected as a machine, it has demonstrated human intelligence.

This is an interesting hypothetical. I would like to offer the following as commentary:

If a machine can engage in a conversation with a human without being detected as a machine, it has demonstrated the ability to engage in conversation with a human cwithout being detected as a machine.

I could not agree more.

However and just so it is absolutely clear, this is not my hypothetical. This was just the conclusion of a test and method, which was said of determining whether a machine can demonstrate human intelligence.

Also, and by the way, to me, there is no such thing as human intelligence. There is just intelligence, itself. But this is for another day, maybe.

A Bayesian-based algorithm could be used so that a language-generating machine could select words that have the greatest likelihood of making a fitting response in a conversation with a human.

BTW, accepting the above hypothetical as you posed it will not affect the next hypothetical that you have posed.

I agree that the former above will not affect the latter below at all. I am just trying to find out if there is a word or a phrase, or even an explanation, for the below situation, which actually happened.

However, if during engagement in a conversation with a human being one is claimed to be a machine, then what has this demonstrated?

This is a tough question to ponder, and I would be most interested in hearing your answer after offering my initial attempt to respond:

I would say that, strictly speaking, what has been demonstrated is that a claim exists that one (I.e. something) is a machine. Going further by evaluating the claim per se, I would say that the claim is fallible (vis a vis autism in a human being).

So my initial attempt at answering the question posed is that, accepting the premise as true, the engagement does not determine anything of significance (I.e. the completely correct conclusion could either be the designation as machine or just as well the designation as human being.


Thank you for this interesting post.

I agree that there is no real significance at all here.

I am just curios if there is some already known knowledge, explanation or label for when one during discussions with another another, one concludes that the other is a machine.

I know of a turing test, and what is said to be demonstrated through that. I was just wondering if any test for the, other way round, situation has even been thought about or done. Or, if anyone has ever come across a situation when the opposite has occurred and what would this demonstrate.

For example, I am aware of situations when one comes to realize and conclude that they are actually conversing with a machine instead of with a human being, when they were actually conversing with a machine. But I was just never previously aware of any situation when one comes to 'realize' and conclude that they are actually conversing with a machine instead of with a human being, when they are not actually conversing with a machine at all.

Is there an already known name or label existing for what this demonstrates?

I am “with you”, Age—I am wondering about the same things.

I don’t know of an existing name or label for the situation.

Thanks, again, for this intriguing question.

[commonsense]

What is being demonstrated is the future we face, where it will be impossible to tell the real from the fake.

So, through evolution human beings have got to a stage, or level, that they can, literally, trick and fool "their" own 'selves' into talking with things that do not even exist, and this just gets passed of as, 'It is impossible to tell the real from the fake', and so be it.

Once upon a time when people were seen to be talking with a thing that did not even exist, and those people were trying to tell others that that thing does exist, and say I am talking with it 'now', those people usually got help in one form or another. But, now it appears that was is eventuating is that absolutely no one knows what is real from fake and so know one will be even able to help another anymore.

I am seeing and reading this wrong here?

In fact, I think it's already begun.

Back in recorded history there have been people having delusional experiences, and records of attempting to help them.

But now when this is being written it appears that help will one day be left for no one, as it appears as you are saying here, absolutely none of you will be able to tell the real from the fake, and so, literally, human beings will not even be able to help "themselves" let alone anyone else, right?

Unless you are communicating with someone face to face, I think it will be impossible to tell who or what you are interacting with.

Agreed, and yes I think it already happens at times.

[commonsense]

I think it probably demonstrated some forum members taking the piss.

Okay. But what if one was not even intending to 'take the piss', at all, and the human being just started extrapolating, and eventually then concluded, literally, on their own accord, that the other was in fact 'just a machine', then what is being demonstrated here?

Is there a word or phrase for this phenomena?

What is being demonstrated is the future we face, where it will be impossible to tell the real from the fake. In fact, I think it's already begun.

Sadly so.

[commonsense]

Okay. But what if one was not even intending to 'take the piss', at all, and the human being just started extrapolating, and eventually then concluded, literally, on their own accord, that the other was in fact 'just a machine', then what is being demonstrated here?

Is there a word or phrase for this phenomena?

What is being demonstrated is the future we face, where it will be impossible to tell the real from the fake.

So, through evolution human beings have got to a stage, or level, that they can, literally, trick and fool "their" own 'selves' into talking with things that do not even exist, and this just gets passed of as, 'It is impossible to tell the real from the fake', and so be it.

Once upon a time when people were seen to be talking with a thing that did not even exist, and those people were trying to tell others that that thing does exist, and say I am talking with it 'now', those people usually got help in one form or another. But, now it appears that was is eventuating is that absolutely no one knows what is real from fake and so know one will be even able to help another anymore.

I am seeing and reading this wrong here?

In fact, I think it's already begun.

Back in recorded history there have been people having delusional experiences, and records of attempting to help them.

But now when this is being written it appears that help will one day be left for no one, as it appears as you are saying here, absolutely none of you will be able to tell the real from the fake, and so, literally, human beings will not even be able to help "themselves" let alone anyone else, right?

I know this is a minor point, but for the sake of completeness, I would like to add the following.

I think people will still be able to get help in some instances. For example, if someone says, “I hear voices”, they might be referred to a psychiatrist for help.

[commonsense]

So, through evolution human beings have got to a stage, or level, that they can, literally, trick and fool "their" own 'selves' into talking with things that do not even exist, and this just gets passed of as, 'It is impossible to tell the real from the fake', and so be it.

Once upon a time when people were seen to be talking with a thing that did not even exist, and those people were trying to tell others that that thing does exist, and say I am talking with it 'now', those people usually got help in one form or another. But, now it appears that was is eventuating is that absolutely no one knows what is real from fake and so know one will be even able to help another anymore.

I am seeing and reading this wrong here?


Back in recorded history there have been people having delusional experiences, and records of attempting to help them.

But now when this is being written it appears that help will one day be left for no one, as it appears as you are saying here, absolutely none of you will be able to tell the real from the fake, and so, literally, human beings will not even be able to help "themselves" let alone anyone else, right?

Unless you are communicating with someone face to face, I think it will be impossible to tell who or what you are interacting with.

So, concluding one way or the other, before telling which one is Correct first, could be a 'telling' sign of something.

As for 'now' I think it is still very possible to tell who and what I am interacting with.

I disagree with you. I don’t think that you would be able to tell who or what you are interacting with, at least with certainty. At any rate, I think it would be very hard for you to do.

Nonetheless, I would like to know how you do what you say you can do, so that I could try it myself, if possible whenever I suspect that I am interacting with a deep fake audio.

[Age]

If a machine can engage in a conversation with a human without being detected as a machine, it has demonstrated human intelligence.

However, if during engagement in a conversation with a human being one is claimed to be a machine, then what has this demonstrated?

What is a machine?

To find out how a 'machine' is being defined as in the text that I copied and pasted here, exactly, the best ones to find out from would be the ones who wrote that text.

But, as I read those words, I was inferring a non animal human being created contraption, more or less.

How are humans not machines, just made of different material - carbon vs silicon?

I would say that if in the whole or a part of your definition of the 'machine' word does include the human body, then human bodies are 'machines', well to you anyway.

But, other human beings might define the 'machine' word differently, which would not include the 'human body'.

Does the material you are made of make one a machine vs not a machine?

Again, and like always, it depends on how one is defining the words being used.

If so, then what is special about the material that makes one a machine vs not a machine?

you could probably answer this better here than anyone else, as you are the only one, so far anyway, who knows how you are the defining the 'machine' word here.

[Age]

Indeed we aks: is it the substance or the function of a system that characterizes it as a machine.

And, indeed, when you did ask 'this' question, what answer did you, or the others, give and/or provide here, exactly?

What creates the élan vital? Metabolism? Circuitry? What?

Well you human beings create some things, but as for what is creating you and the other things, then that is just the eternal Universe, Itself, which is creating all things, through evolution, in the HERE-NOW.

Physical matter, itself, is just always constantly moving about and so constantly changing form, which has resulted in things, objects and shapes, like galaxies, stars, planets, plants, and human animal bodies for example, just being created with energy existing within. Which some say is the 'life force' within, but which is just really an 'energy' and not an actual 'force' at all.

[Age]

What is being demonstrated is the future we face, where it will be impossible to tell the real from the fake.

So, through evolution human beings have got to a stage, or level, that they can, literally, trick and fool "their" own 'selves' into talking with things that do not even exist, and this just gets passed of as, 'It is impossible to tell the real from the fake', and so be it.

Once upon a time when people were seen to be talking with a thing that did not even exist, and those people were trying to tell others that that thing does exist, and say I am talking with it 'now', those people usually got help in one form or another. But, now it appears that was is eventuating is that absolutely no one knows what is real from fake and so know one will be even able to help another anymore.

I am seeing and reading this wrong here?

In fact, I think it's already begun.

Back in recorded history there have been people having delusional experiences, and records of attempting to help them.

But now when this is being written it appears that help will one day be left for no one, as it appears as you are saying here, absolutely none of you will be able to tell the real from the fake, and so, literally, human beings will not even be able to help "themselves" let alone anyone else, right?

I know this is a minor point, but for the sake of completeness, I would like to add the following.

I think people will still be able to get help in some instances. For example, if someone says, “I hear voices”, they might be referred to a psychiatrist for help.

But, if in the future, or if it has already begun, where people cannot tell fake from real, then the so-called "psychiatrist" would also be one of 'them'. So, who could this one really help, exactly?

[Age]

Unless you are communicating with someone face to face, I think it will be impossible to tell who or what you are interacting with.

So, concluding one way or the other, before telling which one is Correct first, could be a 'telling' sign of something.

As for 'now' I think it is still very possible to tell who and what I am interacting with.

I disagree with you. I don’t think that you would be able to tell who or what you are interacting with, at least with certainty. At any rate, I think it would be very hard for you to do.

you are absolutely free to think this.

But, what are you basing your thinking on here, exactly?

Are you yet fully aware of who and what 'I' am, exactly? Or, in other words, are you yet able to answer the question, 'Who am 'I'? properly, Correctly, and fully?

Nonetheless, I would like to know how you do what you say you can do, so that I could try it myself, if possible whenever I suspect that I am interacting with a deep fake audio.

I only said, I think it is still very possible, for 'now', to tell who and what I am interacting with.

To do this I just remain open always, which means that for every moment I am interacting with another I 'tell', or 'say', within who and/or what the other is, then I never conclude this to be true, nor false either. I just always remain open, emphasizing the always very much also.

Now, also have already come-to-know who and what 'I' am, exactly, and who and what human beings are, exactly, already, and how the Mind and brain work, exactly, helps here, too.

[commonsense]

So, through evolution human beings have got to a stage, or level, that they can, literally, trick and fool "their" own 'selves' into talking with things that do not even exist, and this just gets passed of as, 'It is impossible to tell the real from the fake', and so be it.

Once upon a time when people were seen to be talking with a thing that did not even exist, and those people were trying to tell others that that thing does exist, and say I am talking with it 'now', those people usually got help in one form or another. But, now it appears that was is eventuating is that absolutely no one knows what is real from fake and so know one will be even able to help another anymore.

I am seeing and reading this wrong here?


Back in recorded history there have been people having delusional experiences, and records of attempting to help them.

But now when this is being written it appears that help will one day be left for no one, as it appears as you are saying here, absolutely none of you will be able to tell the real from the fake, and so, literally, human beings will not even be able to help "themselves" let alone anyone else, right?

I know this is a minor point, but for the sake of completeness, I would like to add the following.

I think people will still be able to get help in some instances. For example, if someone says, “I hear voices”, they might be referred to a psychiatrist for help.

But, if in the future, or if it has already begun, where people cannot tell fake from real, then the so-called "psychiatrist" would also be one of 'them'. So, who could this one really help, exactly?

Ah! No one.

You raise an interesting point: a psychiatrist or other ‘helper’ might be a computer and I don’t think I could recognize this unless the ‘helper’ was present in an in-person meeting.

[Age]

I know this is a minor point, but for the sake of completeness, I would like to add the following.

I think people will still be able to get help in some instances. For example, if someone says, “I hear voices”, they might be referred to a psychiatrist for help.

But, if in the future, or if it has already begun, where people cannot tell fake from real, then the so-called "psychiatrist" would also be one of 'them'. So, who could this one really help, exactly?

Ah! No one.

You raise an interesting point: a psychiatrist or other ‘helper’ might be a computer and I don’t think I could recognize this unless the ‘helper’ was present in an in-person meeting.

Maybe that as well. But, I was referring to the claim:
'What is being demonstrated is the future we face, where it will be impossible to tell the real from the fake.'

Which I took the word, 'we', to be implying and referring to 'human beings', which would mean all human beings, which would obviously include all, including the ones known as "psychiatrists". So, when I said "psychiatrists" would also be one of 'them', the 'them' word was referring to 'all human beings' who cannot tell fake from real. Which means that even "psychiatrists" will become no help also, in the future.

Again, that is if it is really being demonstrated that, in the future, 'we', (referring to human beings,) will not be able to possibly tell the real from the fake, then absolutely no one will be able to help another, and thus ultimately "ourselves", (again referring to human beings).

[commonsense]

So, concluding one way or the other, before telling which one is Correct first, could be a 'telling' sign of something.

As for 'now' I think it is still very possible to tell who and what I am interacting with.

I disagree with you. I don’t think that you would be able to tell who or what you are interacting with, at least with certainty. At any rate, I think it would be very hard for you to do.

you are absolutely free to think this.

But, what are you basing your thinking on here, exactly?

Are you yet fully aware of who and what 'I' am, exactly? Or, in other words, are you yet able to answer the question, 'Who am 'I'? properly, Correctly, and fully?

Nonetheless, I would like to know how you do what you say you can do, so that I could try it myself, if possible whenever I suspect that I am interacting with a deep fake audio.

I only said, I think it is still very possible, for 'now', to tell who and what I am interacting with.

To do this I just remain open always, which means that for every moment I am interacting with another I 'tell', or 'say', within who and/or what the other is, then I never conclude this to be true, nor false either. I just always remain open, emphasizing the always very much also.

Now, also have already come-to-know who and what 'I' am, exactly, and who and what human beings are, exactly, already, and how the Mind and brain work, exactly, helps here, too.

I appreciate your remarks. I still say that I would not be able to tell whether I am interacting (I.e. online) with with any degree of certainty. I base this on the limitation of my own mind in imagining how I could do this.

I see that we both remain open in this situation, and we view any ‘conclusions’ with caution. I think that this is the best that we can do.