Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 35, No. 481.
Department of Digital Humanities, University of Cologne
Hosted by DH-Cologne
www.dhhumanist.org
Submit to: humanist@dhhumanist.org
[1] From: scholar-at-large@bell.net <scholar-at-large@bell.net>
Subject: Tokens Taken >> Re: [Humanist] 35.478: intelligence, artificial and biological (131)
[2] From: James Rovira <jamesrovira@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Humanist] 35.478: intelligence, artificial and biological (26)
[3] From: maurizio lana <maurizio.lana@uniupo.it>
Subject: Re: [Humanist] 35.478: intelligence, artificial and biological (48)
--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2022-01-21 14:42:24+00:00
From: scholar-at-large@bell.net <scholar-at-large@bell.net>
Subject: Tokens Taken >> Re: [Humanist] 35.478: intelligence, artificial and biological
Willard,,
I am intrigued by the fourth of your questions:
> (4) Have conversational agents in fact passed the Turing test, and if
> so, what has this to do with genuine, meaningful conversation between
> people?
I tongue firmly planted in cheek think about a meta-Turing Test where the
objective is for human understanding of machine-to-machine communication. If the
machine can converse in a fishbowl it approaches the human.
More seriously, I am brought to mind a recent lunch time discussion sponsored by
the Centre for Digital Humanities at X University. It was a play through with
commentary of Signs of the Sojourner (Echodog Games, 2020). [1] This is a
marvellous game full of narrative satisfaction at every turn and teaching
without preaching life lessons in conversation without worry about information
conveyance: the art of cultivating relationships. Further study might involve
determining if the game authors were influenced by Grice’s maxims. [2]
I raise this here not so much to suggest this game or any game passes the Turing
Test but to raise two considerations:
1) to what degree do Turing Test participants imagine themselves as inhabiting a
fish bowl? i.e. what is the potential for going meta in their interactions?
2) what is the nature of the tokens exchanged in conversation?
This second question I ask because there is much discussion of tokens [3] in the
implementation of Web 3.0 and it seems that Grice might have much to offer this
discourse.
[1] https://twitter.com/RUCDH/status/1482034990795870211
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle
[3] What is the Token Economy? Shermin Voshmgir
Yours, never tokenless, F
François Lachance, Ph.d.
scholar-at-large@bell.net
@FranoisLachanc2
living in the beginning of the long 22nd century; sequencing the "future
antérieur"
.
> On Jan 21, 2022, at 3:34 AM, Humanist <humanist@dhhumanist.org> wrote:
>
>
> Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 35, No. 478.
> Department of Digital Humanities, University of Cologne
> Hosted by DH-Cologne
> www.dhhumanist.org
> Submit to: humanist@dhhumanist.org
>
>
>
>
> Date: 2022-01-20 13:12:38+00:00
> From: Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty@mccarty.org.uk>
> Subject: intelligence, artificial and biological
>
> To write or speak about artificial intelligence is like attempting to
> have a serious conversation in a crowded room of people who are trying
> to impress each other, and as more crowd into the room, they talk
> louder in order to be heard over the din. You might think it wise to
> leave to find a quiet place to think, or leave with someone you happen
> luckily to have found who wants a genuine conversation. In plain terms,
> instead of talking or writing about AI, you might conclude it's far
> better to write and talk about another subject altogether.
>
> Yet to turn your back on this subject, given current beliefs and
> technologies, and what is being done with them -- see Stuart Russell's
> recent Reith Lectures and Erik Larson's The Myth of Artificial
> Intelligence (the book is better than its title might suggest) -- is
> perhaps not such a good idea. Do we really want what's being said and
> done to prevail?
>
> Take Alexandre Gefen's upcoming talk, announced on Humanist yesterday,
> together with his paper, "AI: a Deep History". (If I may, I suggest that if
> the subject interests you, you follow the links, register and download the
> paper.) To be as brief as possible I'll confine myself to his first few
> sentences, which are laid down as simple facts:
>
>> Artificial Intelligence (AI) can be defined as the set of
>> mathematical methods and computer technologies designed to solve
>> problems ordinarily handled by the human mind, from the accompaniment
>> of human tasks (digital tools) to the substitution of humans (the
>> horizon of a "general AI" capable of producing reasoning). We are
>> currently at an intermediate stage of this technological development,
>> which concretely started in the 1950s, but one that have been
>> fantasized about for millennia. AI already offers better performances
>> than humans for many specialized tasks (image and document
>> classification, translation, trend analysis and prediction,
>> production of sounds, texts and images, resolution of elaborate
>> games). AI has also shown its ability to plausibly simulate certain
>> interactions and since 2014 conversational agents have been able to
>> pass the Turing test imagined by the mathematician in 1950...
>
> This sounds, I suppose, entirely unremarkable, but on reading it I
> was persuaded that remarks were imperative, especially here, on
> Humanist. But remarking turned into a note far too long, so I will
> confine myself to asking four questions:
>
> (1) Is an imitative AI all that is possible, all that is desirable, all that
> has been achieved?
>
> (2) What exactly has humankind "fantasized about for millennia", and how
> are these fantasies of the historical past related to current work?
>
> (3) Do "better performances than humans for many specialised tasks" sum
> even in principle to intelligence as we strive to understand and develop
> it in ourselves?
>
> (4) Have conversational agents in fact passed the Turing test, and if
> so, what has this to do with genuine, meaningful conversation between
> people?
>
> Here the room is quiet, and everyone is listening.
>
> Yours,
> WM
>
> --
> Willard McCarty,
> Professor emeritus, King's College London;
> Editor, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews; Humanist
> www.mccarty.org.uk
--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2022-01-21 17:09:35+00:00
From: James Rovira <jamesrovira@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Humanist] 35.478: intelligence, artificial and biological
I think the Turing test is irrelevant. We just need to dispose of it as
part of our criteria. People can be fooled all of the time. That doesn't
mean much. People also like McDonald's and blood sausage. The Turing test
is probably more meaningful in instances where people are *always fooled *or
*never fooled*, but otherwise, I don't think so. Even then, the conditions
under which people are *always fooled *are just as important as the object
doing the fooling.
But the question, "What has been imagined for millennia?" is I think
important.
I think the answer to this question falls under two categories:
1. Biological or mechanical entities that independently carry out human
tasks, like the Golem. It's not necessarily an independently thinking
being. It just performs a task or tasks.
2. A physical, crafted, human creation that comes to life, possessing
independent will and agency, like Pygmalion.
If you mean the first, sure. If you mean the second, I don't think so.
Let us not forget the very human tendency, also existing for millennia, for
people to build things then kneel before them in veneration, offer
sacrifices, treat as oracles.
JIm R
--[3]------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2022-01-21 10:00:27+00:00
From: maurizio lana <maurizio.lana@uniupo.it>
Subject: Re: [Humanist] 35.478: intelligence, artificial and biological
hi Willard,
i stay on point 4 "(4) Have conversational agents in fact passed the
Turing test, and if so, what has this to do with genuine, meaningful
conversation between people?"
the claim of passing the test leave mixed feelings: is the test
passed if the bot convinces 33% of the judges?
but the more relevant question is: which questions have been asked?
the account given by Luciano Floridi of his participation in the
Loebner contest in 2009 (Floridi, Luciano, Mariarosaria Taddeo, e
Matteo Turilli. 2009. «Turing’s Imitation Game: Still an Impossible
Challenge for All Machines and Some Judges––an Evaluation of the
2008 Loebner Contest». Minds and Machines 19 (1): 145–50.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-008-9130-6) has some relevant points:
first of all the judges must be trained to be judges in a TT - that
is they must ask questions which can be answered only if the
interlocutor truly understands its meaning, context or implications,
not questions which ends with an answer yes/no (do you believe in
God?)
secondly, the imitation games should be played with different levels
of time control: long games (up to 7 h), short games (30/60 min),
blitz games (3–15 min for each player), bullet games (under 3 min)
and one-question games (1 min) because the recognition can be
challenged at mopre different levels and different ways than in
short and standard exchanges.
without a detailed record of all the questions and answers, the
validity of the conclusions remains uncertain.
(i was near to write "i think that the validity remains uncertain"
but then it came to my mind the discussion about "The Rise and Fall
of Rationality in Language" and i decided that i wanted to counter
the decline of rationality - sort of.)
Maurizio
mural of Giulio Regeni in Mohammed Mahmoud Street, Cairo
the source is
https://alwafd.news/images/thumbs/752/new/027f918bb62bf148193d5920ca67ded7.jpg
the meaning of the place
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-20395260
Maurizio Lana
Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici
Università del Piemonte Orientale
piazza Roma 36 - 13100 Vercelli
tel. +39 347 7370925
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted
List posts to: humanist@dhhumanist.org
List info and archives at at: http://dhhumanist.org
Listmember interface at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted/
Subscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/membership_form.php
