passing the Turing test of a conscious being guarantees the presence of the pattern-which-is-consciousness
I don’t agree with this. The Turing Test was designed to try to determine whether “machines can think,” but that doesn’t mean that’s what it’s actually measuring. I think we agree that it’s not feasible to directly test for consciousness, especially since it’s not entirely clear what qualifies anyway. (I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on e.g. whether the Chinese Room counts as conscious. I’m very undecided in that area myself.)
That being said, the Turing test is a test of acting-like-a-human, which is not the most reasonable proxy for consciousness by really any definition. Do you think all conscious agents have an innate sense for whether the entity they’re interacting with is conscious? (Why would we even need this kind of test or discussion in that world?) And it’s also human-centric. I’d say it’s highly unlikely that our experience of consciousness is the only one out there. If you asked me to complete a Turing test in, say, Spanish, I’d probably sound rather stilted and unnatural due to my non-native, textbook-register Spanish. Put me, four AI models, and five native Spanish speakers in a line, and I have my doubts as to whether I’d pass. But obviously I’m still conscious, incluso cuando hablo español ou falo português 还是我说中文. I personally prefer the Lovelace test to the Turing test, but I don’t consider either of them a real measure of consciousness, and of course the Lovelace test only works with at least a degree of communication capability anyway.
I think we agree that it’s not feasible to directly test for consciousness, especially since it’s not entirely clear what qualifies anyway.
What would qualify would be the minimal state machine that implements the behavior of the conscious being. Its presence is guaranteed by passing the unbounded Turing test.
The Chinese room passes the Turing test, therefore it’s conscious.
That being said, the Turing test is a test of acting-like-a-human
In its broader definition, as originally conceived, it’s a test of acting like a conscious (or thinking) being. Acting like a human passes the test, but not acting like a human doesn’t fail the test Alan Turing originally had in mind (acting like a human is a sufficient condition for thinking, not a necessary one).
I’d say it’s highly unlikely that our experience of consciousness is the only one out there.
Yes. To pass the proper Turing test, it’s sufficient to act like a conscious being. There is no need to duplicate the specific psychological baggage that evolution gave to our species (and definitely no need to act like Homo sapiens whose mothertongue is some particular language).
I don’t think the Lovelace test tells us anything interesting—current models would probably pass it, because, given their limited interpretability, we’d have a hard time explaining their artistic output (unless we give ourselves unbounded time, in which case no physical system passes).
I don’t agree with this. The Turing Test was designed to try to determine whether “machines can think,” but that doesn’t mean that’s what it’s actually measuring. I think we agree that it’s not feasible to directly test for consciousness, especially since it’s not entirely clear what qualifies anyway. (I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on e.g. whether the Chinese Room counts as conscious. I’m very undecided in that area myself.)
That being said, the Turing test is a test of acting-like-a-human, which is not the most reasonable proxy for consciousness by really any definition. Do you think all conscious agents have an innate sense for whether the entity they’re interacting with is conscious? (Why would we even need this kind of test or discussion in that world?) And it’s also human-centric. I’d say it’s highly unlikely that our experience of consciousness is the only one out there. If you asked me to complete a Turing test in, say, Spanish, I’d probably sound rather stilted and unnatural due to my non-native, textbook-register Spanish. Put me, four AI models, and five native Spanish speakers in a line, and I have my doubts as to whether I’d pass. But obviously I’m still conscious, incluso cuando hablo español ou falo português 还是我说中文. I personally prefer the Lovelace test to the Turing test, but I don’t consider either of them a real measure of consciousness, and of course the Lovelace test only works with at least a degree of communication capability anyway.
What would qualify would be the minimal state machine that implements the behavior of the conscious being. Its presence is guaranteed by passing the unbounded Turing test.
The Chinese room passes the Turing test, therefore it’s conscious.
In its broader definition, as originally conceived, it’s a test of acting like a conscious (or thinking) being. Acting like a human passes the test, but not acting like a human doesn’t fail the test Alan Turing originally had in mind (acting like a human is a sufficient condition for thinking, not a necessary one).
Yes. To pass the proper Turing test, it’s sufficient to act like a conscious being. There is no need to duplicate the specific psychological baggage that evolution gave to our species (and definitely no need to act like Homo sapiens whose mothertongue is some particular language).
I don’t think the Lovelace test tells us anything interesting—current models would probably pass it, because, given their limited interpretability, we’d have a hard time explaining their artistic output (unless we give ourselves unbounded time, in which case no physical system passes).