Distinguishing between chat-bots and non-chatbots for humans is becoming very difficult. (See Slashdot - http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/26/2115236&from=rss - and Discover Magazine - http://discovermagazine.com/2009/mar/25-how-can-you-tell-if-your-im-buddy-is-really-a-machine/). So chat bots are seeming human, to human judges, and passing the Turing test.
"Every year the Loebner Prize goes to the chatbot (and the corresponding human companion) that fares best on a Turing test administered by a panel of judges. Discover talked to Kevin Warwick, the professor who runs the competition, to get pointers on how one would go about detecting a bot. While there are some general approaches you can use, nothing is foolproof — and asking about Sarah Palin can be downright deceptive. One judge concluded an interlocutor was a bot because it didn't recognize Palin's name ... but it turned out the chatter was a French librarian who'd simply never heard of her." The chat transcripts show how difficult picking abot from non-bot is getting" (http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/26/2115236&from=rss).
Does this mean that we might be able to create a 'Richard Rorty' - ... - as artificial intelligence, an idea I've written about before in this blog, and explored in the class I taught on Berkman Island (not on Harvard's faculty) in Second Life for a number of semesters.
*
See, too -
Philosophy_and_the_Mirror_of_Nature
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_and_the_Mirror_of_Nature
Re:
*
"Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature is a 1979 book by American philosopher Richard Rorty, in which the author attempts to dissolve modern philosophical problems instead of solving them by presenting them as pseudo-problems that only exist in the language-game of epistemological projects culminating in analytic philosophy. In a pragmatist gesture, Rorty suggests that philosophy must get past these pseudo-problems if it is to be productive. The work was considered controversial upon publication, and had its greatest success outside analytic philosophy
. . .
Summary[edit]
Rorty argues that philosophy has unduly relied on a representational theory of perception and a correspondence theory of truth, hoping our experience or language might mirror the way reality actually is. In this he continues a certain controversial Anglophone tradition, which builds upon the work of philosophers such as Quine, Sellars, and Donald Davidson. Rorty opts out of the traditional objective/subjective dialogue in favor of a communal version of truth. For him, "true" is simply an honorific knowers bestow on claims, asserting them as what "we" want to say about a particular matter.
Rorty explains how philosophical paradigm shifts and their associated philosophical "problems" can be considered the result of the new metaphors, vocabularies, and mistaken linguistic associations which are necessarily a part of those new paradigms."
*
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_and_the_Mirror_of_Nature
*
Examples of chat bots already developing with machine learning to chat like Rorty or another philosopher?
*
Dirty-Mirror-of-Nature
...
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment