This week an announcement rippled through the internet: a computer passed Turing's test. Soon after the backlash began: the test was rigged, the resulted were hyped, and Eugene, the machine in question, was lame.
Now the backlash is giving way to even stronger criticisms. +Massimo Pigliucci recently argued ([ Ссылка ]) that not only was this test illegitimate, but Turing's test itself should be abandoned. But Massimo's argument is deeply mistaken about the nature of Turing's test, what it seeks to prove, and why it matters for science.
I've been writing all week about this event:
[ Ссылка ], [ Ссылка ], [ Ссылка ], [ Ссылка ], [ Ссылка ]
But now that the backlash against the event is directed at Turing's views themselves, I feel something more than an essay is required to address these concerns. To be convincing, this requires a human face and a human voice to speak out in defense of Turing's proposal.
I'm fully aware of the irony of this situation.
So come hangout with me and +Jon Lawhead this Friday at 10pm EST while I defend Turing's proposal in light of the criticisms that have accrued over the last week. I'll be providing a defense of Turing's position informed by recent experimental work in psychology. I hope to convince even the skeptics like Massimo that Turing's test deserves a central place in our discussion of artificial intelligence in the modern world.
