I have read Turing's paper and I think it's something of a masterpiece. He finds a way to avoid figuring out what "thinking" is and still make progress. We have now had 75 more years of experience than Turing had in 1950, and it's no wonder if there were things he hadn't figured out. And we still don't have a good handle on what "thinking" is. His original proposed game is more sophisticated than what is usually meant nowadays when people talk about "the Turing test", and we have have had more chances to see where these tests have turned out not to be perfect. And after all, his ideas seem to have been evolving in the several years after the paper was published. Were he still alive we can be sure they would have evolved further.
There's no point is arguing whether Turing got everything right. His ideas and presentation opened up people's minds in the area of thinking machines, and even now he doesn't seem to have been far from the mark. On Friday, June 13, 2025 at 5:12:24 PM UTC-4 [email protected] wrote: > > On 12/06/25 11:44, Edward K. Ream wrote: > > On Thursday, June 12, 2025 at 11:16:26 AM UTC-5 Edward K. Ream wrote: > > > I am uninterested in this topic, for reasons I have explained previously. > > And I have explained why such reasons seem uncompelling. A first principle > (an axiomatic rule) can not be: someone argument's are, by principle > un-criticable. > > > > Imo, Wikipedia article on the Turing Test > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test> refutes the notion that > Turing's 1950 paper was anything but first rate. > > In fact it doesn't. None of the 24 references to the paper across the > article says anything about the paper quality itself, and are more related > with interpretations. Given than Wikipedia, as any encyclopedia is a > secondary source that appeals to primary sources, and we have access to the > primary source[1], we can judge by ourselves about the papers quality and > see if we agree or not with the podcast criticism about Turing's tendencies > to displacing both the question from "can machines think?" to "can machines > pass the imitation game?" and also displacing the objections (from machines > can not create anything original to machines can not surprise us), his lack > of citations, his disengagement with contemporary thinkers/academicians > working on similar topics, his poor referencing to external sources and so > on. > > [1] > https://academic.oup.com/mind/article-abstract/LIX/236/433/986238?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false > > > > > You may have the last word, if you like. > > Still true :-) > > I'm not interested in having the last word, nor in forcing someone into a > conversation. In my two decades as member of the Leo community, I have > found here a place of intelligent, inspiring and well argumented > conversations, that I have praised several times. That was also what I was > looking for here regarding IA. I think that such conversations are > important in this times of rage and noise, particularly when we disagree. > > Cheers, > > Offray > > Ps: In another moment I'll share my links collecting criticisms of AI, > that seem also necessary, now that most of places seem preaching to the > (AI) chorus. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/leo-editor/db90d515-f13f-444c-abd7-c07ee901510fn%40googlegroups.com.
