The future of translation is part human, part machine

I think Confused and Ivan are both onto something. Just because it is possible to construct a universal Turing machine out of heart tissue doesn’t mean that anyone’s heart tissue actually has this configuration. Just because it’s theoretically impossible to predict the limiting behaviour of hearts in general doesn’t mean that it’s impossible to predict the limiting behaviour of all the existing human hearts.

Your Brain Is Not the Hard-Wired Machine You Think It …

(I call this

Your brain is not the hard-wired machine you think it is

Alan Turing in one of his famous papers said that by the end of the century he expected "Éthe use of words and general educated opinion will have altered so much that one will be able to speak of machines thinking without expecting to be contradicted.", There are at least four ways in which we might move toward such a state of affairs: i) Machines get better at mimicking us; ii) We become more charitable to machines; iii) We start to behave more like machines; iv) Our image of ourselves becomes more like our image of machines.

Human heart is a Turing machine, research on XBox …

It seems to me that the analysis of skill, knowledge, human abilities, or whatever one wants to call the sets of activities for which we use our minds and bodies, must start from this distinction and that understanding how much of what we do can be taken over by machines rests on understanding the same distinction.

[…] Human heart is a Turing machine, research on XBox 360 shows. Wait, what? […]

Woman or machine? New robots look creepily human

This is not a modern problem. Descartes faced up to it in the 17th century, as he pondered the differences between humans and animals. And his answer has had such an immense influence on the founders (and later practitioners) of Symbolic AI, that I think it is worth looking at closely. He wrote:

Human Knowledge: Foundations and Limits

The first of these is that they would never be able to use words ... as we do to declare our thoughts to others: for one can easily imagine a machine made in such a way that it expresses words, ... but one cannot imagine a machine that arranges words in various ways to reply to the sense of everything said in its presence, as the most stupid human beings are capable of doing.

I think a closer look at the notion of strong superhumanity can show why that is.

Human + Machine: Reimagining Work in the Age of AI [Paul R

You should be able to see clearly the influence of Descartes here. For Turing, as for Descartes, the key indicator of intelligence is flexibility of response through language. Turing's proposal has been immensely influential and, although many modern researchers believe it is deeply flawed, as a definitive test for intelligence in machines it has never been seriously challenged. In 1990 Hugh Loebner, in collaboration with the Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies, set up a yearly competition for The Loebner Prize. He provided the capital for a gold medal and an award of US$ 100,000 to the programmers of the first computer to pass the Turing Test by giving responses indistinguishable from a human's. The prize has not yet been won (2006). However, each year a prize of $2000 and a bronze medal is presented to the designers of the most human computer program, as compared to other entries that year.

Dell Technologies 2018 Predictions – Entering the Next …

As I've argued, Descartes' concentration on language performance had a huge influence on the founding fathers of artificial intelligence. One can see strong echoes of it in the Dartmouth proposal paper you dealt with in Exercise 5, with its stress on language, creativity and problem solving as key features of intelligence. But without doubt the dominant influence on modern thinking about recognising intelligence, human and artificial, and the direct heir of Descartes, was Alan Turing.

*FREE* shipping on qualifying offers.

Read through the document linked below. These are (lightly edited) transcripts of some of the dialogues between the human judge and the winning computer in 2005, a program called Jabberwacky. I've also included one transcript of a conversation with the human confederate B. Can you tell which of the transcripts is the one of the dialogue with the human confederate? How well does Jabberwacky perform in the Turing Test, in your opinion? What do you think is its chief failing?