I am disappointed: the Turing Test is central to the title topic, and this note's take on it is sophomoric:
> This functional perspective is exemplified by the “Turing Test,” which considers a machine “intelligent” if a person cannot distinguish its behavior from that of a human.[11] However, in this context, the term “behavior” refers only to the performance of specific intellectual tasks; it does not account for the full breadth of human experience, which includes abstraction, emotions, creativity, and the aesthetic, moral, and religious sensibilities.
This is a strange distinction to make that fundamentally misunderstands the Turing Test. "Behavior" means anything that can be objectively measured. You can (and should) absolutely ask the test subject anything you like about emotions, creativity, aesthetics, morality, and religion. It is common in written examples of the Turing Test to depict asking the subject to do things like write a poem.
> Nor does it encompass the full range of expressions characteristic of the human mind. Instead, in the case of AI, the “intelligence” of a system is evaluated methodologically, but also reductively, based on its ability to produce appropriate responses—in this case, those associated with the human intellect—regardless of how those responses are generated.
Again - how else can you evaluate anything? I evaluate my fellow humans by their responses, too - I have no idea how they generate them. Indeed, if you take into account the "how", you don't even have a test, do you? You merely have a policy, a belief that privileges one mechanism over another.
I am afraid that any analysis of AI by the Vatican is going to be corrupted by motivated reasoning. Humans are God's creations, and AI is Man's creation, and therefore Humans are Just Better and that's all there is to it.
> This functional perspective is exemplified by the “Turing Test,” which considers a machine “intelligent” if a person cannot distinguish its behavior from that of a human.[11] However, in this context, the term “behavior” refers only to the performance of specific intellectual tasks; it does not account for the full breadth of human experience, which includes abstraction, emotions, creativity, and the aesthetic, moral, and religious sensibilities.
This is a strange distinction to make that fundamentally misunderstands the Turing Test. "Behavior" means anything that can be objectively measured. You can (and should) absolutely ask the test subject anything you like about emotions, creativity, aesthetics, morality, and religion. It is common in written examples of the Turing Test to depict asking the subject to do things like write a poem.
> Nor does it encompass the full range of expressions characteristic of the human mind. Instead, in the case of AI, the “intelligence” of a system is evaluated methodologically, but also reductively, based on its ability to produce appropriate responses—in this case, those associated with the human intellect—regardless of how those responses are generated.
Again - how else can you evaluate anything? I evaluate my fellow humans by their responses, too - I have no idea how they generate them. Indeed, if you take into account the "how", you don't even have a test, do you? You merely have a policy, a belief that privileges one mechanism over another.
I am afraid that any analysis of AI by the Vatican is going to be corrupted by motivated reasoning. Humans are God's creations, and AI is Man's creation, and therefore Humans are Just Better and that's all there is to it.