I wanted to see what other people's views were.My own view of the risks is as follows. If the Turing Machine is built to be as isomorphic with humans as possible, it would be incredibly dangerous. Indeed I feel that the biological model is far more dangerous than the mathematical.
If on the other hand the TM was *not* isomorphic and made no attempt to be, the dangers would be a lot less. Most Turing/Löbner entries are chatterboxes that work on databases. The database being filled as you chat. Clearly the system cannot go outside its database and is safe. There is in fact some use for such a chatterbox. Clearly a Turing machine would be able to infiltrate militant groups however it was constructed. As for it pretending to be stupid, it would have to know in what direction it had to be stupid. Hence it would have to be a good psychologist. Suppose it logged onto a jihardist website, as well as being able to pass itself off as a true adherent, it could also look at the other members and assess their level of commitment and knowledge. I think that the true Turing/Löbner test is not working in a laboratory environment but they should log onto jihardist sites and see how well they can pass themselves off. If it could do that it really would have arrived. Eventually it could pass itself off as a "*peniti*" to use the Mafia term and produce arguments from the Qur'an against the militant position. There would be quite a lot of contracts to be had if there were a realistic prospect of doing this. - Ian Parker On 7 August 2010 06:50, John G. Rose <johnr...@polyplexic.com> wrote: > > Philosophical question 2 - Would passing the TT assume human stupidity > and > > if so would a Turing machine be dangerous? Not necessarily, the Turing > > machine could talk about things like jihad without > ultimately identifying with > > it. > > > > Humans without augmentation are only so intelligent. A Turing machine would > be potentially dangerous, a really well built one. At some point we'd need > to see some DNA as ID of another "extended" TT. > > > Philosophical question 3 :- Would a TM be a psychologist? I think it > would > > have to be. Could a TM become part of a population simulation that would > > give us political insights. > > > > You can have a relatively stupid TM or a sophisticated one just like > humans. > It might be easier to pass the TT by not exposing too much intelligence. > > John > > > These 3 questions seem to me to be the really interesting ones. > > > > > > - Ian Parker > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > agi > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
