TED Conversations

Farrukh Yakubov

Student, Purdue University

TEDCRED 50+

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

What question would you ask to identify whether or not you were chatting with a well developed software or a person?

Imagine an experiment where you are asked to chat with one hundred people online, no sound or image, just text. Three of them are actually not real, they an extremely good automated response systems. Your task is to identify those three. You are allowed to ask only one and same question from everyone. People on the other end are specifically chosen such that none of them have similar personality. Programs are also given a unique personality. Only trick is, while you ask questions, programs observe responses of everybody else and may or may not change behavior based on that. What would your question be?

P.S. If you would like to be sure how good is 'extremely good' automated response system in the though experiment above, you may consider it to be the best of such systems you think is possible.

+4
Share:

Closing Statement from Farrukh Yakubov

Now that the conversation is over I would like to leave you with more thoughts.

Imagine, this experiment took place and you asked your question, and indicated three of the participants as programs. What if this experiment was not what you thought it was, and after the experiment you were told that 100 participants were all human or all programs, or even a single person answering 100 different ways? What if the purpose of the experiment was not about the capabilities of programs, but about the people - to see how people percieve an intelligent software? Did you think about this possibility?

On the other hand, if the experiment was to test the programs, how effective do you thinki it would be to use this same question of the experiment? i.e. asking "What question would you ask to identify whether or not you were chatting with a well developed software or a person?" from each of the 100 participants.

It is up to you to chose the post experinment scenario, and you would be correct. Because, the experiment can work both ways wether you decide to look at this experiment as an attemp to test programs, or a way of understanding peoples' understanding of programs.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Jan 23 2014: People are just physical manifestations of natures alogorithms (i.e. we are electric beings). If you doubt this think of when the minds of alzhiemers patience malfunction. We 'watch them die' (aka watch their hardware fail).

    The only way to tell a person from a computer is to have evidence, if the model is sufficiently advanced then it should be able to replicate human behavior good enough for us not to be able to tell.
    • thumb
      Jan 23 2014: I agree 99%. I'm not sure I would require that we be electric (or electromagnetic) beings, as I believe at the core we are information which can be expressed through non-electric means.

      This begs the question: At some point, does a sufficiently advanced replication of human behavior actually become "alive" in some sense?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.