The Winograd Schema Challenge is described in a paper to be found at this link.
The problem is determining what kind of a thing a thing is by only looking at what it does.
Judging from a written conversation between a real person and an unknown entity can the person accurately determine if the entity is another human being or a computer.
This is what the Winograd Schema Challenge says about the Turing Test:
"The Turing Test does have some troubling aspects, however.
First, note the central role of deception. Consider the case
of a future intelligent machine trying to pass the test. It must
converse with an interrogator and not just show its stuff, but
fool her into thinking she is dealing with a person. This is
just a game, of course, so it’s not really lying. But to imitate
a person well without being evasive, the machine will need
to assume a false identity (to answer “How tall are you?”
or “Tell me about your parents.”). All other things being
equal, we should much prefer a test that did not depend on
chicanery of this sort. Or to put it differently, a machine
should be able to show us that it is thinking without having
to pretend to be somebody or to have some property (like
being tall) that it does not have."
In the Logic, Language, Structure Trinity can the Logic of a computer conversation with a human be distinguished from the Logic of a human communicating with a human? For the computer to win depends on deception. Making a human being think that it is something it is not based on the interaction converstation.
The identity nature and properties of Money is perceptually known to us through our communications with it by what it does as a medium of exchange. Store of value? Hmm....let's just call it a believed medium of future exchange, otherwise it would have no value. We know money by what it does, past present and future. We therefore believe it to be an object. Good enough for the common perception but that is not how the money system is structured. Money is not an object but the functional product of a controlling contractual condition of debt creation. All money is the product of debt. We perceive it as debt most clearly when we get it directly through entering a contractual agreement where we receive or loan money based on a contract to repay in money.
In the Logic, Language, Structure Trinity can the Logic of a computer conversation with a human be distinguished from the Logic of a human communicating with a human? For the computer to win depends on deception. Making a human being think that it is something it is not based on the interaction converstation.
The identity nature and properties of Money is perceptually known to us through our communications with it by what it does as a medium of exchange. Store of value? Hmm....let's just call it a believed medium of future exchange, otherwise it would have no value. We know money by what it does, past present and future. We therefore believe it to be an object. Good enough for the common perception but that is not how the money system is structured. Money is not an object but the functional product of a controlling contractual condition of debt creation. All money is the product of debt. We perceive it as debt most clearly when we get it directly through entering a contractual agreement where we receive or loan money based on a contract to repay in money.
No comments:
Post a Comment