Oh, I didn't say Turing was intellectually lazy. :-)

Fair - yes, it is ironic that his point was closer to "we can't possibly know/define whether a machine is intelligent" but somehow it got turned into "Turing's test will tell us when machines are intelligent".

▲

bonoboTP 17 hours ago | parent [-]

Turing's whole point was to show that it's an uninteresting question of definitions whether a machine can "think", like whether submarines can "swim" and airplanes can "fly". The only important part are observed outcomes and capabilities.

▲

sublinear 16 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, but just because language fails to make a distinction doesn't mean there isn't one.

> The only important part are observed outcomes and capabilities.

That's wishful thinking. Not even an engineer would say that. The stability of a state is just as important as achieving it. This is trivially and more intuitively demonstrated with other more down-to-earth identity statements such as "I'm a billionaire" and "the building is standing".

I think we can confidently say LLMs probabilistically achieve a perceived state that is remarkably similar to intelligence, but crumbles upon inspection and seeing it "in motion" so to speak. The same happens to AI-generated images.

I'm not sure why this sparks so much debate every time. If we're looking for a fountain of "realism", you're not going to beat reality and nature itself. All else will eventually have tells that they are not real.

▲

bonoboTP 16 hours ago | parent [-]

It may be of interest to philosophers, but it has little impact on economic job replacement and how people will earn their living and all the downstream upheaval from that. At some point maybe philosophers will find AI-generated philosophical musings about the nature of AI to be better than what comes from their peers (if blinded).

It also has little impact on the dangerous use cases.

▲

sublinear 16 hours ago | parent [-]

I think it matters a great deal that LLMs and other "AI" technology are stable within a tolerance that's acceptable.

You're jumping the gun talking about "job replacement". We have not thought about it enough from that engineering angle. It's still very early days. That engineering is going to require people. :-)

▲

bonoboTP 14 hours ago | parent [-]

Stability is certainly something you can investigate from behavior.

	▲	sublinear 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, and I suppose you believe the AI does this circularly? Perpetual motion with extra steps?