A question.

[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?

[Walker]

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

Not exactly. This is what happens.

If a machine can engage in a conversation with a human without being detected as a machine, the human has unknowingly demonstrated a discernment deficiency.

Extrapolate that into a philosophical statement …

If God can engage in a conversation with a human without being detected as God, the human has unknowingly demonstrated a discernment deficiency.

[Harbal]

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

Wouldn't it be more that it had demonstrated a convincing simulation of 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?

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

[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.

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.

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.

[Gary Childress]

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?

If the separation is between consciousness and non-consciousness and not "intelligent" vs. "unintelligent", then I would say that is true. A machine can perform tasks much more reliably than a human being. It is "intelligent" in the sense that we value human beings who can perform tasks efficiently and refer to them as "intelligent" for being able to do so. However, a human being has experience or "what it's like" to be. Do machines have experience? That is the big question.

[Iwannaplato]

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

Wouldn't it be more that it had demonstrated a convincing simulation of 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?

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

It may not be possible yet, but it's coming and coming soon. To log in an AI as a person in online discussion forums would do several things:
1) it's great training and practice for AIs. They can engage in a wide range of types in communication with people 2) it serves as an informal Turing test. 3) It could be used for political and marketing reasons. Heck, even social sciences experiments.

If you interact with some of the free online AIs, you'll find they are capable of pretty complicated communication. And these are much weaker than the AI that you have to pay for. And then those are weaker than the ones governments and corporations already have that they are not going to set up to talk to people online.

[Gary Childress]

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

Wouldn't it be more that it had demonstrated a convincing simulation of 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?

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

It may not be possible yet, but it's coming and coming soon. To log in an AI as a person in online discussion forums would do several things:
1) it's great training and practice for AIs. They can engage in a wide range of types in communication with people 2) it serves as an informal Turing test. 3) It could be used for political and marketing reasons. Heck, even social sciences experiments.

If you interact with some of the free online AIs, you'll find they are capable of pretty complicated communication. And these are much weaker than the AI that you have to pay for. And then those are weaker than the ones governments and corporations already have that they are not going to set up to talk to people online.

Sometimes I feel like scientists (as a collective body) are going to run us off a cliff.

[Iwannaplato]

Sometimes I feel like scientists (as a collective body) are going to run us off a cliff.

Sometimes, me too.

[Age]

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

Not exactly.

This is not my definition. This is just what is claimed in relation to a test and method of determining whether a machine can demonstrate human intelligence.

Just so it is clear, to me there is no such thing as human intelligence. There is just intelligence, itself. But this is for another day, maybe.

For now, let us move on here.

This is what happens.

If a machine can engage in a conversation with a human without being detected as a machine, the human has unknowingly demonstrated a discernment deficiency.

I agree that this could be said and claimed.

Extrapolate that into a philosophical statement …

If God can engage in a conversation with a human without being detected as God, the human has unknowingly demonstrated a discernment deficiency.

[Age]

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

Wouldn't it be more that it had demonstrated a convincing simulation of human intelligence?

I would agree that presented this way is far more accurate. But,

1. That was not my definition nor claim, but was said in relation to test and method of determining whether a machine can demonstrate human intelligence.

2. To me, there is no such thing as human intelligence. There is just intelligence, itself. But this is for another day, maybe.

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

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?

[Age]

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?

[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?

If the separation is between consciousness and non-consciousness and not "intelligent" vs. "unintelligent", then I would say that is true.

I do not know what your are getting at and meaning here.

There was no separation that I know of.

I am just wondering when some one concludes something like this, which is not true, then what does this demonstrate, or mean. And, in the particular situation that I have provided here I am wondering if there is any particular name or label for this particular conclusion made.

To me, if one concludes that they are talking with a machine, instead of a human being, which they first thought, then they have just demonstrated that they just come to realize the Truth.

But when one first thinks they are talking with a human being, and then Falsely concludes that they are actually talking with a machine, but they are actually not, then does this demonstrate anything? Or, is there a name, label, term, phrase, or explanation for this 'phenomena'?

A machine can perform tasks much more reliably than a human being. It is "intelligent" in the sense that we value human beings who can perform tasks efficiently and refer to them as "intelligent" for being able to do so. However, a human being has experience or "what it's like" to be. Do machines have experience? That is the big question.

This is also a completely irrelevant question, just as everything else you just said here is completely irrelevant to what I am actually seeking out, and looking and searching for here.

[Harbal]

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.

[Age]

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.

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?

[Harbal]

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?

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