The whole argument in the link reduces to the so called "Chinese Room" [wikipedia.org], which itself is just a version of Solipsism that draws the boundary between biology and technology
Ouch, that was painful. I'm actually dumber, now, having read that. Please, for the love of all that is good in this world, stop discussing this topic.
As a logical positivist
Seriously?
It's like seeing someone proudly proclaim that they're a flat-earther. You may want to reconsider your position.
Same AC as above, I take it. It's "All your *base* are belong to us"
By your reasoning, it's been a "moving target" since 1950 as Turing himself offered variations on his test in the original paper!
See, there isn't a single monolithic thing call "The Turing Test". There isn't even widespread agreement on the nature of the tests Turing proposed. When you say "The Turing test makes sense" you're saying that you have some exclusive insight in to Turing that no one else has, and that you think that that variation "makes sense". So, please, share your divinely revealed interpretation and how it overcomes the objects raised to Turing tests over the last 64 years.
With that out of the way, consider that this new variation ALSO suffers from the same problems as all other Turing test variations: They attempt to objectively infer intelligence from a subjectively interpreted, and groundless, proxy.
It makes just as little sense as all the others.
Maybe you should inform yourself what a Turing test actually is?
Please, enlighten me. There's at least two variations in Turing's 1950 paper, and countless others have appeared since then. (You'll also find tons of research showing that these variations are not equivalent to one another.) Which is the "real" Turing test?
Eliza didn't pass it
Weisenbaum, and countless others, would strongly disagree with you.
Turing's first failure was assuming that the questions "can machines think" and "Are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the imitation game?" are equivalent. His second was assuming that the results of such a game are something that can be measured objectively. The first is obviously wrong, the second was very clearly demonstrated to be wrong by Weisenbaum's Eliza via the differences between the reactions of technical and non-technical staff to the program.
Did you miss the last 64 years of research and philosophy? The last hold-outs, save the most delusional, we're knocked out by Searle in 1980.
It's only controversial for those who haven't read Turing's paper, or have completely failed to understand it.
Eliza, for example, highlights the massive failure in Turing's reasoning -- The question "can machines think" is not equivalent to the question "Are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the imitation game?"
Weisenbaum found the response to his program from non-technical staff disturbing.
Secretaries and nontechnical administrative staff thought the machine was a "real" therapist, and spent hours revealing their personal problems to the program. When Weizenbaum informed his secretary that he, of course, had access to the logs of all the conversations, she reacted with outrage at this invasion of her privacy. Weizenbaum was shocked by this and similar incidents to find that such a simple program could so easily deceive a naive user into revealing personal information.
Further, the so-called "Turing test" hasn't held still. Not even in his 1950 paper! (Turing proposed multiple variations on the test, if you'll recall.) Since then, a number of different versions of the "Turing test" have appeared, none of which are (like Turing's variations) are equivalent to one another!
If you need a *really* simple argument: The results of any variation of the "Turing test" are completely subjective. Consider a program that fools 100% of one set of interrogators may completely fail to fool even 10% of another set.
What? It's been controversial since the beginning, and a complete joke after Weizenbaum wrote Eliza.
Right on! People who think that others deserve equality are so pathetic!
The difficult part isn't finding competent developers, it's finding competent developers with the relevant domain knowledge.
Be careful! Slashdot is home to many misanthropes. You may find your 'funny' comment modded 'insightful' instead!
We're talking about "Rock Stars" not "Great software engineers".
There's not much, if any, overlap there.
I want to work with and employ people that are constantly asking and answering, "Is there a better way of doing this?"
Those guys work in architecture, not the development trenches.
it leads you to automated solutions where the brainpower of your above average developers is used to solve the difficult problems, not the mundane ones.
How long have you been at this? >99% of development doesn't involve solving difficult problems. (For LOB apps, you'd be hard-pressed to find a difficult problem!) As I said before, programming is easy and, as a consequence, it's often very boring. The last thing you want is a bored prima donna introducing unnecessary complexity (usually in the guise of half-baked 'solutions' or 'frameworks' to 'automate' or 'simplify' the boring slog that is the bulk of development) to keep themselves entertained.
That's "prototypal", and it's better in just about every way. (Google classical vs prototypal for an easy intro)
Just for you, since you're not interested in an actual education:
Why I roll my eyes when I read your replies
Now go and sin no more!
What gives you that idea?
As I've pointed out many, many, times here, you're the one doing the public understanding of science a huge disservice with your irrationality. I'm also the only one of us, obviously, with actual scientific credentials. See, while you were browsing the JREF forums, filling your head with nonsense, I was in grad school getting an actual education.
It's not too late for you. Lots of adults are perusing higher education these days. I highly recommend it. It sure beats watching you contribute to the erosion of the public understanding of science. You know how you feel when you see a creationist video on youtube? That's how I feel when I see nonsense from the anti-science science cheerleaders, like you.
Now imagine if programmers were overpaid, undertalented, super inflated egos, where glaring faults in code could be patched over with a public relations campaign?
Imagine?
Eureka! -- Archimedes
