Concerning the Turing test, I find that the requirements toward _generic
language output_ should be definite and that the programming needs to _not_
extend certain limits of size so that the computer _really_ generates language
of human quality and not that it is allowed such extension that one enters all
sorts of typical pattern of human behaviour that the programming by this notion
*defeats itse...lf*, making the whole programming ridiculous and more apt for
artificial intelligence _emulating_ human behaviour *only*!!! One should also
take into account the phenomenon of "Truthiness" and "telepathy" so as to see
that the "Turing test" is now utterly defeated regardless, because computers
can't pick up these extraordinary capacities of human kind!!! Good?
Urls: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test !
Url2:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/truthiness?rdfrom=Truthiness !
Quote:
"truthy + -ness. First attested in 1824."
Quote: American Dialect
Society's Word of the Year (2005)
Url3:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness ! Quote from this: "Truthiness, although
a "stunt word", was named Word of the Year for 2005 by the American Dialect
Society and for 2006 by Merriam-Webster.[7][8] Linguist and OED consultant
Benjamin Zimmer[2][9] pointed out that the word truthiness[10] already had a
history in literature and appears in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), as a
derivation of truthy, and The Century Dictionary, both of which indicate it as
rare or dialectal, and to be defined more straightforwardly as "truthfulness,
faithfulness".[2]"
Conclusion either way is that the Turing test is forever defeated, given all
honesty, and that the matters that remain now is how long the computer can hold
and "small questions" of challenges merely for having the computer to behave
like a human being in being engaged in a speech, very advanced, all allowed, or
not!
First written to Facebook, both under my profile and as a note with the same
header as above.