Researchers reach human parity in conversational speech recognition

Re:Researchers reach human parity in conversational speech r... by Retric on Tuesday October 18, 2016 @08:07PM (#12739842)

Nothing you just said invalidates the test.

X is a demonstration of intelligence says nothing about not X.

If you can design something that passes an arbitrary touring tests yes it is intelligent. For example I could teach it any subject that works in text format. It could then pass an open ended essay test. And get a reasonable essay.

Now, you could do the same thing with a pig and it would fail the test despite being more intelligent than the average dog. That just means there are limits.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Researchers reach human parity in conversational speech r... by makomk on Wednesday October 19, 2016 @04:37AM (#12742112)

This is one of the practical limits of the Turing Test as usually proposed - the parties could just refuse to jump through the hoop of writing an essay, and that would be a perfectly normal reaction. In practice, attempts to pass the Turing Test have leaned heavily on hand-coded strategies for changing the subject and feigning refusal to co-operate, with some success - for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Goostman

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Researchers reach human parity in conversational speech r... by Retric on Wednesday October 19, 2016 @10:54AM (#12744322)

What I find most interesting about that strategy is in practice it fails. The strength is it can push people to wait longer before judging. The weakness is it fails to demonstrate intelligence.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Researchers reach human parity in conversational speech r... by gingerrr on Tuesday October 18, 2016 @08:35PM (#12739981)

So help me, I think you've convinced me. I don't know what to do with all this leftover xkcd/386 though.

Thanks for the great chat.

[ Parent | on HN ]