The Turing test demonstrates human gullibility more than it demonstrates machine intelligence. Some people were convinced that ELIZA was a person.

But sure, a test that doesn't actually demonstrate intelligence has been passed. Now, where are the $1000 computers that can simulate a human mind and the brain scans to populate them with minds?

▲

johnfn 2 hours ago | parent [-]

He doesn't say 'simulate' a human brain unless I'm missing it in the summary (cmd-f "simul" has no results) - that would require significantly more capacity than that contained in a brain (think about how much compute it takes to run a VM). He seems to be implying that by 2020s a computer will be about as smart as a human. LLMs seem capable of doing a decent amount of tasks that a human can do? Sure, he's off by a few years, but for something published 20 years ago when that seemed insane, it doesn't seem that bad.

▲

Jtsummers 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Fair, the term in the summary is "emulate". So to restate, still waiting for the $1000 machine that can emulate human intelligence and the brain scans to go with it. Computing power is nowhere near what he predicted, because unlike his predictions reality happened. Compute capabilities, like many other things, is a logistic curve, not an unbounded exponential or hyperbolic.

EDIT:

> LLMs seem capable of doing a decent amount of tasks that a human can do?

And computers could beat most humans for decades at chess. Cars can go faster than a human can run, and have been able to beat a human runner since essentially their invention. Machines doing human tasks or besting humans is not new. That doesn't mean we're approaching the singularity, you may as well believe that the Heaven's Gate folks were right, both are based on unreality.

▲

johnfn 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I think he is using "emulate" in a more metaphorical sense, like that it can do similar things that the human brain can do? I'm not trying to be antagonistic, it just seems logical? He says the Turing test won't be passed until 2029 - if we're going by your definition of "emulate" wouldn't it have been passed the instant the brain was "emulated?"

	▲	Jtsummers 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> if we're going by your definition of "emulate" wouldn't it have been passed the instant the brain was "emulated?" Yes, which also demonstrates the illogic of his timeline. I just thought it was too obvious to point out.