Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 16:35:27 11/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 20, 2000 at 18:45:03, Andrew Dados wrote: >On November 20, 2000 at 18:25:21, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>On November 20, 2000 at 03:02:48, Andrew Dados wrote: >> >>>On November 19, 2000 at 20:11:59, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>> >>>>On November 19, 2000 at 10:25:21, Hermano Ecuadoriano wrote: >>>> >>>>>There has been some discussion here about holding some >>>>>"exhibition" variations on the Turing test. >>>>> >>>>>This must be done eventually. >>>>>If successful, it would be epoch-making. >>>>> >>>>>I think the year 2001 is fantastically apropo, >>>>>promotionally speaking! >>>> >>>>I will look this up later, but until then, does anyone know of a good definition >>>>of the Turing test? I would prefer Turing's. >>>> >>>>Is it posted on the web someplace? >>>> >>>>bruce >>> >>>Btw.. a computer program passed 'composer' Turing test a few years ago. A piece >>>written by a program was performed against original Bach piece. All the audience >>>knew was that one of the two was written by a human and the other by a computer. >>>Majority of spectators decided computer's composition was genuine Bach. >>> >>>The program was sort of neural network fed with several hundreds of genuine Bach >>>to train on.... >>> >>>-Andrew- >>> >>>P.S. I always suspected J.S.Bach was not a human...:) >> >>I printed out the article. It is pretty dense stuff, and it's 26 pages long, so >>I haven't gotten through it yet. >> >>I would think that faking Bach would be pretty easy. >> >>Imagine faking latin text. I think you could do this pretty easily, if your >>audience couldn't speak Latin. You can make something that looks Latin enough, >>by taking Latin text, partially digesting it, and vomiting it back out. A >>friend of mine made a program that did this, and he barfed Latin all over us. >> >>This sounds similar to the Bach thing. >> >>bruce > >I didn't say chess was easier then faking music or other art. Most people will >probably think differently. >And it can be that faking a 1600 elo player is harder to do then faking a GM. > >-Andrew- I don't think we are arguing about it. I'm interested in Turing, without dealing with the chess aspect, for a while. I'll get back to Turing and chess later, after I've read the article. I think that faking either would be pretty hard. You can't just turn the power up or down on the computer. Each player has a distinctive style, and specific strengths and weaknesses. But for all I know you are right. bruce
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.