Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
So I guess you are right.
You need to read more Feynman. You are a classic cargo-cultist.
If they can, companies pass the taxes on to their customers in the form of higher prices.
Or, the tobacco companies lose those customers, who spend the money on something else like food or rent.
If they can't, that money comes out of the value of the company and the stockholders take the hit.
And that is exactly who should be taking the hit! After a while, they get the hint and pull their money out of the tobacco company and put it somewhere else.
Sounds like win-win to me.
A real Turing-type test would be based on the "imitation game" and would involve a group of people, each told to converse with the candidate AI while trying to convince a panel of expert judges that they are, in fact , a real person while the other is an AI. Of course the AI would be doing the same thing in reverse. At the end of the conversation, the judges would have to decide which one they think is human, and which is the AI. Every time a new challenger was selected, a new panel of judges would also be selected.
This would be repeated many hundreds of times. At the end, if there was any statistical correlation between the judges opinions and the correct answers, then the AI would have failed.
But what if that is not the case? Does that mean that the AI is "intelligent"? No, it just means that the test was too easy. Thus, the most a Turing-type test can demonstrate is that an AI is a failure, but not a success.
If you don't want to vaccinate your kids, fine. Give them up to some responsible people and go back to your cave. In any case, keep your disease-ridden children away from mine.