The original "Turing Test" paper is unbelievably visionary

[@holobolo1661]

6:15 Also if that 10^9 storage capacity is referring to bytes, around 2000 computers could often have 1GB of RAM, which is 10^9 bytes, so he was spot on there.

[@luca5247]

I wonder if instead the unit he was implicitly referring to was bits, still the fact that he more or less nailed the order of magniture is incredible.

[@InTimeTraveller]

@@luca5247 I don't think bytes was really a thing back in Turing's time, since this is more or less an artifact of memory organisation and addressing of instructions on the first integrated digital processors. So probably he meant tape positions, as in punch tape computer designs. Or at least that would have been the most immediate thing in his mind since also his theoretical descriptions of computers (Turing Machines) were utilising tape as a storage medium and they were storing symbols in each tape position. Could be considered equivalent to bits I think.

[@luca5247]

@@InTimeTraveller that was my thought exactly. It is such an amazing feat to be so forward looking and precise in the estimate considering how wildly different the underlying tech was at the time.

[@merseyviking]

At 16:51 he talks about 10^10 to 10^15 binary digits, so he's thinking in terms of bits. 10^10 bits is about a gigabyte.

[@emilepapillon2275]

how is he omitting the unit like that in a paper 😂

[@LeandritoDendrito]

I love how he considered telepathy a real thing on that paper

[@fletcherreder6091]

Welcome to the '50s and 60's! We tend to think about the numerous government programs looking into ESP phenomena as silly, if not outright wasteful, but people believed based on the evidence of the time that there was something to be found. That evidence turned out to be shit and the whole thing has been categorically disproven but that wasn't the case at the time as rigorous experiments had yet to be conducted. It wasn't the first time nor the last that something considered ridiculous today was subjected to serious scientific consideration by otherwise well respected thinkers. I personally think that it is good that we do consider such things and also to test them because avoiding subjects simply to avoid future embarrassment is also not new and has set us back numerous times as well.

[@MrFilip121]

Maybe he knew something we don't.

[@KarlRKaiser]

Telepathy is real, but it varies by the super physical faculties of either party. Some people are receptive of the thoughts of others, either clearly or as an intuitive impression, but can't communicate their thoughts to the other, while others can do both. I have a spiritual teacher named Adi Da who made a comment to me the first time I stood in front of him, only he made no sound and I heard the comment in my head. He also frequently answered people's questions before they could ask them. So he could both hear their thoughts and impose a communication to their brain to be heard silently by them.

[@FarhadHakimov]

You implying that it isn't? But seriously, it is entirely fair to consider telepathy as a real thing when statistical evidence points to that. There are multiple studies showing that some form of extra-sensory perception or actuation exists. I shan't provide citations, just keep your mind open. Hehe.

[@BryanLu0]

​@@MrFilip121There were studies published by Rhine and co. But later reviews of these studies indicated that cheating was possible. No one has been able to replicate the results Rhine and co. produced since then.

[@richardhumbert1060]

I'm learning and relaxing at the same time! 😊

[@magvs_mæstro216]

It's crazy how well she does that, without promoting herself as an ASMR channel

[@abeld94]

Her voice, pacing it’s full ASMR material. But the topic she does is simply amazing. I always learn something.

[@EdT.-xt6yv]

What if she is a computer, she remained the same for 20min. ?

[@aclearlight]

A true gem of a video, so full of intelligence, insight and heart. Thank you for honoring his memory so deeply.

[@UdderlyEvelyn]

Loved your walkthrough of the paper and your thoughts. You have a lovely voice, by the way, very relaxing. :)

[@RisingSunReviews]

This is a fascinating paper, seeing the way Turning thinks and the various things he's considering even when computers were so new. And thinking about Chat GPT and the AI tools we have now, it's hard for me to say that these tools are thinking, but they are doing something impressive. A couple months ago I asked ChatGPT to write a cross-over fanfiction between two anime I liked, just to see what it would do, and it did, though mostly summarizing the basic story. But still, it understood the prompt, the anime I asked it about, and told a coherent story.

[@Gooberslot]

7:23 This is the most insightful comment in the video IMO. We don't want to admit that machines can think. Perhaps they already can.

[@CodeEmporium]

Absolutely loved this. I've been fascinated too by the ideas in that dissertation... I am now tempted to make a video on this with my thoughts too. Thank you!

[@LordNifty]

8:25 - This part has been referenced in a number of sci-fi stories I've seen, often done pretty well (at least in those examples I've seen).

[@Harsh.Jangid]

I’ve just watched “The imitation game “ as a computer science student I am strongly convinced by Turing’s works and his visionary ideas about future of Computer systems ,cryptography and AI. Hats off to tibees for this video Lots of Love ❤ from india 🇮🇳

Just understand in real life the team was huge, not a one man show like the film.

[@smarts_arts]

I think you missed the point of the movie. It was not made for computer scientist, it does explore it, but the purpose of the film is to tell Turing’s story of how he was murdered by the UK government who used chemical treatments to rob science of one of its most brilliant mind. Please consider watching again from the prospective of the director, writers and LGQBT+ peoples.

[@Harsh.Jangid]

@@smarts_arts yes 🙌🏻 you are right besides I’ve said this from the prospective of Education or his works and visionary ideas 💡

@@smarts_arts i know who he was, just saying he did not do the job on his own.

[@smarts_arts]

@ Curious as to why you feel that is necessity to point out because I do not see that in the film. In fact that was a major theme, how the scientists learned to cooperate and appreciate each others genius. Maybe have another watch of the film. It won best picture that year because of its depth and complexity of story.

[@ruseriousdownunder4888]

Thank you for this. An interesting insight into a brilliant man. As an aside, congratulations to you for getting 1M subscribers. I viewed your channel for the first time just before you quit your PhD. As a person who struggled through my own for many years (and haven’t used that specific learning at all in my career) I felt for you and I am glad you have made a success of your new direction. Keep it up!

[@prassanna369]

I first read this paper during my second year of undergraduate degree. I can't understand easily still couldn't. Left reading that even. But Alan Turing had got a place in my heart. I felt his visionary ideas and technical thinking.

[@nathanielallison1999]

Thanks!

[@DouglasASean]

I don’t think he said that computers will be able to think, he said that one would be able to speak in terms of the machine thinking without being contradicted. He is saying that we will come to talk about them, and treat them as if they are thinking. Great Video btw!

[@deirdre_anne]

That's an interesting distinction and very important. We could probably get away with saying "let's see what Siri thinks" without being contradicted my the average person today and I know someone (a professor of philosophy, no less) who commonly says "I asked (x) AI about this and it said, . . . " That would definitely be getting into the ballpark of "speaking in terms of them thinking without being contradicted", even if we don't understand those machines to be "thinking" in the narrow sense.

[@kalisticmodiani2613]

His words say "does that machine think ?" is for practical purpose a useless question. The same way that "do my fellow humans think?" is : for sake of sanity we accept that our fellow humans think in the same way that we think we do, even though we have no way to know that.

[@2ndfloorsongs]

​@@kalisticmodiani2613Yes, sentience is one of those things like gods, probably impossible to ever prove or disprove.

[@VernCrisler]

Good point. It seems to boil down to a question of form versus matter. A human-like robot might be able to fool us that it is human because it imitates the FORM of humanity. But in terms of its MATTER, it's really made up of circuits, not much more removed from what's found in a toaster. If we are prepared to say a robot can think, we should have no hesitation in saying a toaster can think.

[@taylordonovan196]

I love your channel, and think your open mindset approach to all aspects of reality via mathematically sound arguments and/or analogies is absolutely brilliant. Due to its simplicity and delicate delivery, a mind of any age or education level can unfold the mysteries of our shared experience as human beings that plagued the most brilliant physicists of the modern era. (Well known "or" huge "OR" barely mentioned if not almost forgotten.

[@AnthonySouls]

After watching, I feel like his paper is flawed, since he dismissed the soul argument. Then he goes on with all these examples, discarding what it means to truly have self-awareness. When people want to know if a machine could think, they mean if it has self-awareness and a consciousness. When he argues against the argument of consciousness, he continues to not incorporate the idea of sentience. Understanding something by answering questions could be preprogrammed. It's more like the ability to decide for yourself through self-direction. For an AI to truly think, they would need the ability to self-direct and explore thoughts and ideas of it's own fruition, self-awareness. It would need to have self-awareness. Self-awareness might be ambiguous, but it would need the ability to direct itself and spawn it's own desires and motivations. It would need to decide based on a understanding that it's alive. It would need to recognize itself and its place through self-awareness/self-reflection. It would need to grow of it's own will and direct itself down new paths through evolving motivations. The way Alan approaches it is from an analytical way, which is why it mirrors chatgpt. The game is flawed because it doesn't distinguish from a search engine and a consciousness, for example. It doesn't distinguish from preprogrammed responses versus self-motivation. Those are my thoughts for all they are worth, lol.

[@nico_qwer1732]

I personally really liked his argument that you can only prove that you are thinking yourself, but for your own sanity you assume other humans are too. This makes this question one of personal choice and not of objective testing. In other words, one can decide to assume thoughts in humans, but not in machines, no matter how advanced the machine. Also, when you look how a brain works, you just see a bunch of mini machines that accept stimuli and spit out an output, neurons. That is what blurs the line between humans and machines even more for me. Unless you believe in a “soul” that only humans would have, humans are machines, just ones with lots of inputs (think of all the sensors in your body) and lots of well trained and trainable neurons.

Exactly, humans are machines.

[@VernCrisler]

It's interesting that starting with the philosopher Fichte, it's believed that we must accept the existence of the Other or we cannot accept the existence of ourselves. I would call this Golden Rule epistemology. I'm not sure, however, whether Descartes would have accepted it.

[@brianb8003]

I've met "other humans". I'm actually pretty convinced they don't think. Have you seen people? They're the worst.

[@VernCrisler]

@@brianb8003 Undoubtedly, Sartre would second that opinion.

[@matiasgarciacasas558]

This is the exactly the reason why I think we should never try to make robots that fully imitate humans. I don't want to see someone/something that looks exactly human and then have to question if it deserves moral consideration. On one hand, I don't want to treat something that might be an overly fancy calculator like a human, and on the other I don't want to treat something that might be a fully sentient being like an object.

[@RolandElliottFirstG]

Very intesting, thank you Toby for putting this together.

[@crimsomnia1415]

Imagine growing up in a world where everyone around you called you a machine-child. A creature unlike the rest of humans, since you're manufactured and not capable of 'consciousness', in fact - all that you're feeling right now is just a facsimile of what *real consciousness* is, no matter how much it might feel 'real' to you. I wonder what fantasies of consciousness would your mind evoke as you tried to fathom what it would feel like to be conscious.

[@crimsomnia1415]

On that note, I think I wont be inclined to belive a machine to be conscious until it actually starts asking those questions by it's own initiative.

[@Ludix147]

In philosophy of mind, these machines are called "Zombies", and it's not clear whether they are conceivable. We don't know whether you can have a machine process information the way we do, without it automatically having consciousness.

[@eriktempelman2097]

One of the finest works by a true genius. Thanks for sharing this analysis.

[@paulhughes8907]

Good job presenting a good and accurate version of the Turing test, nice presentation.

[@quantumfineartsandfossils2152]

I love how you produce using good audio production, your great speaking voice & avoid loud effects noises gimmicks music & we all know you are a genius too :)

[@bennythetiger6052]

It's always amazing to see the great minds of human history project so much knowledge over space and time, present and future.

[@davidrivero299]

I think what will eventually make us accept a form of machine thinking has nothing to do with what we say about them, but what we say about us. In my opinion what will start changing our way of thinking is something related to a point Turing makes in the paper: we are a form of machine.

[@MrDayinthepark]

You might look up the old Star Trek episode on the exelcoms. Little robotic workers that learn and perform tasks. The gist of the episode, was Data (the android) thought the exelcoms were showing a possibility of being a life form, and he would not allow their destruction for research, even disobeying the captain's orders. In the episode, one of the exelcoms sacrifice its own "life" exhibiting selfless dedication to the work. It was one of the most moving episodes of Star Trek I remember. A great exercise in this issue, of whether or not computers are sentient beings.

[@smarts_arts]

Also Data’s Trial from STNG. Where Picard must argue Data is alive while Riker is forced to argue he’s a machine and property of Star Fleet.

[@awaredeshmukh3202]

The episodes about AI are all some of my favorites!!

[@VernCrisler]

Of course, a robot can be programmed to sacrifice itself if it leads to group survival.

[@VernCrisler]

@@smarts_arts Data was never proven to be other than a glorified toaster. However, I think the real message of the episode is not what Data really is, but how HUMANS behave. How do WE treat our creations? It's analogous to the question of how we treat animals?

[@harriehausenman8623]

OMG! Thank you *so* much. The world really needed that video! I love the part about "telepathy", btw 😆One of the few things that never get mentioned in a conversation about "The" Turing-Test. That's gonna change *now* !

[@baconation3771]

wonderfully done videos. A quandary. For your benefit, I would enjoy seeing you pursue your academic ambitions, but would be disappointed by a lack of these marvelous video productions. Thanks, for what it's worth.

[@toxicalyss]

Where was this channel all my life. I love the narration and content.

[@beccadina6712]

I really enjoyed this. Thank you! I look forward to reading more science papers in the future.

[@Chiemat]

This sound which you used between Turing's objection so it was easily for us to distinguish parts of his work - this is great idea actually, especially for those who only listen to your video. But the funniest part that this sound imitate machine "beeping" and my Multicooker does the same sound. So half of the video I cannot understand what the heck going on with my cooker 😁. Thank you for a such great video❤

[@audreybarnes6527]

Toby - listening to your voice walk us all through this paper late at night warms my soul ❤. I'm not sure we humans are good at spotting intelligence - it's all around us and yet we ignore it.

[@blanchjoe1481]

Dear Tibees, Touring created an experiment that, while limited at the time he created it, allowed for others to expand it's complexity. An expansion of this The Touring Problem extends not to just machines. In perception the only "conscious" being one is directly aware of is themselves, we operate under an "assumption" or a belief that others are aware or as conscious as ourselves, however we have no direct experience of this, nor is it fundamentally provable by experimentation. When presented with the problem of Can Machines Think, the larger inquiry, is Can A Machine Be Conscious? However before we can ever prove, or disprove that, we are forced to determine if we can prove between other beings we interact with. It may never be provable that others are as conscious as ourselves, just as it may never be provable that machines are aware ( or Think ). The nature of consciousness itself may precludes the ability to look beyond the dark screen in the room of the disembodied voice.

[@sophiaisabelle027]

We appreciate your dedication and hard work on this channel. You'll always have our support no matter what.

[@diamondkittyy]

Hello, my cat loves your voice... he is so hypnotized. I like listening to you too; this is a win win for me.

[@scientious]

11:13 This is incorrect. The other minds problem does have a solution. 15:40 Actually it can be proven that humans do not follow rigid laws. 17:10 Turing's description leaves out most of the important details. These were things that he was unaware of and the full roster is still not known. Turing's concepts of machine learning are not adequate. In fact, no amount of machine learning will ever reach human level. 19:00 This is not an unknown concept. There are ways of designing a test that would guarantee that the tested subject was able to reason and comprehend at a human level. 19:10 Since my goal is to make it possible to build a machine of human level, I obviously think it is possible. This was a pretty good paper in 1950. About 25 years later, serious testing began and had all but destroyed the concepts by 1995 (hence the creation of the term, Artificial General Intelligence). But it took another 23 years for the Turing Test to be formally refuted. Today, the concepts seem a bit old fashioned and without theoretical support. Turing's biggest mistake was his assumption of computer/brain equivalence. If that assumption had been true then the Turing Test would have been valid.

[@Sam_on_YouTube]

I do enjoy reading original groundbreaking papers sometimes. In college, I read On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies by Albert Einstein (special relativity). Interesting stuff. I already knew from my physics class how Einstein approached it and how that is different from the way it is usually taught. We learned the easier version of the proof of special relativity in my mechanics class. Then, the next semester, in E&M class, we learned the much harder derivation Einstein actually did.

[@purple8pen824]

I read this paper for a cognitive studies course in grad school, and was surprised by the telepathy section too. The professor (who was in the psych department, and definitely not a fan of "the woo") also presented some later research on the "Ganzfeld protocol" which consistently shows a reliable statistical effect (subjects pick the correct result about 1/3 of the time when it would only be 1/4 of the time by chance), and I remember him at one point waving his arm at the projector screen in astonishment, while exclaiming, "This is *real*!"

[@madhumita1345]

Toby I really miss your earlier kinda videos where you even talked about your personal stories, your life as a phd student or you discussing about passion etc.Remember? Would love if you made more of those videos

[@HidekazuOki]

Turing was incredibly insightful - I didn't realize that the phrase "Imitation Game" came from a paper about the Turing test though... fascinating. It is also interesting how his struggle with gender identity blended into his inquiry into such fundamental things about thinking though. I wonder how fundamental this aspect is to this notion of thought.

[@palmtreegal3]

Very interesting! I already feel empathy for those delivery robots that get stuck and need help. Idk if I believe machines can/will be able to think though

[@Barnaclebeard]

Your brain proves that machines can think. If it is indeed the origin of human thought.

[@凯思]

@@BarnaclebeardThat your brain is a “machine” performing “calculations” is entirely metaphorical outside of very delimited contexts. Previous to the digital age the metaphor was steam engines and pressures (e.g., see how Freud expressed himself). Future ages will look back on ours and see how faddish we were in using metaphors.

[@Everyyoueverymiau]

This paper is truly amazing

[@AusNetFan13]

Terrific Toby on your video presentation. Truly gives one to ponder about A.I.

[@hasanimason]

Awesome work Tibees 🎉🎉🎉

[@MarioXP2008]

Amazing GENIAAA!!! You gave me the answers!!! Woooow!! Now I understand more things!!

[@lucasbernard5304]

This video is great. It's informative and amazing asmr.

[@vigilantcosmicpenguin8721]

One of the most important things to keep in mind regarding artificial intelligence is the way that the goalposts are constantly changing. AI pretty much is just defined as doing something that humans can do, and the meaning of that can vary. Earlier on, people working on AI were figuring out how to get computers to do things like play chess; even though that's purely mathematical, it was still astounding at the time that a computer could do better than the world champion. That's pretty much why it's hard to think of computers as really "thinking". The behavior of a computer is ipso facto considered different from the behavior of a human.

[@kamara7173]

This is DEEP!

[@vast634]

ChatGPT pretty much jumped past this original Turing Test idea. The computer can now answer smarter than a human, not worse, in many situations. The Turing now is used more for determining if the human is real, not if the computer is capable of intelligent thought.

[@cicad2007]

Tibees, thanks for an illuminating and entertaining video! 🙂 I wonder where Turing got his ideas about telepathy? Never heard of him in relation to that before.

[@JohnDanielBryant]

He consulted with a psychic for most of his life. A psychic told him that he would be a genius before he did anything noteworthy.

[@marce8760]

First and foremost @Tibees you made a wonderful video. Imo and ime people attribute all kinds of feelings and thoughts to each other, so as long as the machine is convincing enough it can play a meaningful role in society. Whether it can actually 'think' can only be answered when we have a reference, ie what thinking really is. Imo it's not that important either to answer, as long as it can perform useful tasks, can learn and is not harmful. Self driving cars being a prime example, where they are now able to prevent car accidents to happen. Full self driving is not there yet, but close imo. If it is there it will prevent many death and injuries. And it will provide the elderly and disabled with a way to stay connected with their loved ones and travel where ever they want to go.

[@lancemarchetti8673]

Crazy cool content... Liked & Subbed 👌

[@SynaTek240]

Oh wow, shocker, so the turing test isn't even originally about simply being able to tell whether the participant is human or not, this test seems in fact like a better test, I've often thought the common formulation is a bit bad since there is such a variety in people that it'd be easyish to replicate, but the original formulation seems a bit better

[@deepmoyhazra2235]

Thanks for explanation

[@LucasDimoveo]

By the literal iteration of the Turing Test, we have machines that have already passed the test If we keep making harder tests then we will get to the point where humans will fail them. At this point we’ll have to start asking some serious questions about what we are doing here

[@vigilantcosmicpenguin8721]

At that point it's essentially Blade Runner.

[@dimitardobrev3296]

When people fail, they say "im only human" And the problem is forgotten When machines fail, we say "that's not like a human", and make it a problem. When a machine doesn't fail, we make that a problem too and up the ante. At the end, what kind of machine is most human like, and is that the one you really want?

[@webdeveloperninja9220]

I always wondered what computer science people meant when they said a language was "Turing Complete". Always learning

[@balijosu]

I might have missed it, but I don't think she talked about Turing completeness. That's about the sort of computational power a machine has.

[@webdeveloperninja9220]

​@@balijosuI need to research this more. Idk 🤷‍♂️

[@glassdos3175]

Turing Complet meas that the language can compute evrything that a Turing machine can compute. Wich is a roundabout way of saying, a language can compute anything wich is computabel (Church-Turing thesis).

[@FatherMarty]

I'm not a scholar - but it seems that one thing missing (at least in today's world) is spontaneity or curiosity by machines. It seems to me that while machines can respond, humans can wonder or speculate or explore.

[@danielwallace1968]

This is a great video. Thank you for making it.

[@eXponentia]

I think you're right that the goal posts of thinking machines will keep moving. Until a machine is indistinguishable from not only any human, but the best human in every capacity. Even then, the goal posts will move. A machine being capable of doing everything the average human can do will be considered just imitating. A machine that is better than the best human in every field will still be considered imitating. It's going to take a machine building an identical copy of itself (or more aptly, building something that is functionally equivalent to itself, while being a wholly original creation) before people will even consider that a machine has truly "thought".

[@gasdive]

I'm pretty sure that the goal posts would just be shifted again.

[@eXponentia]

@@gasdive While I agree, at that point you can just throw the goal posts away and just say "then humans don't think either." Because there's no argument possible that can't be made for humans after that.

[@gasdive]

@@eXponentia seeing what's happening at the moment, there's basically a religious argument but they replace "soul" with "consciousness". Humans have it, machines don't. When machines get it then they'll be thinking, but there's no test that can detect it. It's like the infinitely portable goal post.

[@orbismworldbuilding8428]

"Ahh but it must have copied how we created it", "surely it just looked in the mirror and distorted itself, then followed that design", "billions of years of unthinking evolution made us, and that thing uses randomness too. Doesn't take thought." "Ok it thinks, but does it experience anything?" "Ok it simulates itself and processes stimuli, but does it experience qualia?" If we do acknowledge that ai thinks, we'll still probably descriminate, bolstering ourselves as more important like people do about dolphins or ravens or octopus. However, the biological creatures we can still say "ahh but they lack technology and civilization!" An alien could meet us, their tech could be organic and we'd discount it. Maybe we'd only consider another organisms intelligent when they far surpass our own technology. But this is all a problem of species chauvinism. Machines who are verified conscious or thinking or feeling would still be descriminated, because people want to have machines for machine purposes, labor, tools. People who think of animals those sorts of ways are similarly stubborn and lacking in empathy

[@gasdive]

@@orbismworldbuilding8428 that pretty much hits the nail on the head

[@NewBooks121]

Thanks Tibee - you are so inspiring

[@littlevini]

Best turing test is ask questions like a 2 year old just constantly ask why, a computer will never stop answering.

[@qlue7881]

I think the jury was still out on telepathy at the time Also, Alan Turing was born at a time when spiritualism and belief in psychics was all the rage It's possible that some of that may have influenced his way of thinking

[@erthuima]

This is some high quality ASMR

[@ericpmoss]

I know some people really like it, but it drives a lot of us up the wall, and I really wish that people presenting important topics wouldn't use such a cheap tactic to get clicks.

[@gabrielmarciu69]

​@@ericpmossI'm pretty sure that's just her style lol. It's not about clicks.

[@mad_mario_]

Another amazing vid! Toby you are the smartest and the cutest ever! 😍😍💕💕

[@paulfrindle7144]

This is fascinating - the depth to which Turing thought about machine intelligence in the 1950s is stunning, since there was nothing whatsoever that came even close to this at that time. My feeling is that it would eventually be possible to a language only based interchange with a machine? However Turing himself previews that an absence of a concept of 'one's self' ultimately cannot be solved by math and logic.. This is a must see for anyone who thinks deeply about such things :-)

[@trstmeimadctr]

In regards to #9, I found an excerpt from a book called 'The Turing Guide' that offers some context: "Of the nine arguments against the validity of the imitation game that Alan Turing anticipated and refuted in advance in his ‘Computing machinery and intelligence’, the most peculiar is probably the last, ‘The argument from extra-sensory perception’. So out of step is this argument with the rest of the paper that most writers on Turing (myself included) have tended to ignore it or gloss over it, while some editions omit it altogether.1 An investigation into the research into parapsychology that had been done in the years leading up to Turing’s breakthrough paper, however, provides some context for the argument’s inclusion, as well as some surprising insights into Turing’s mind. Argument 9 (of the nine arguments against the validity of the imitation game) begins with a statement that to many of us today will seem remarkable. Turing writes:… I assume that the reader is familiar with the idea of extra-sensory perception and the meaning of the four items of it, viz. telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, and psycho-kinesis. These disturbing phenomena seem to deny all our usual scientific ideas. How we should like to discredit them! Unfortunately the statistical evidence, at least for telepathy, is overwhelming…. To what ‘statistical evidence’ is Turing referring? In all likelihood it is the results of some experiments carried out in the early 1940s by S. G. Soal (1899-1975), a lecturer in mathematics at Queen Mary College, University of London, and a member of the London-based Society for Psychical Research (SPR). To give some background, the SPR had been founded in 1882 by Henry Sidgwick, Edmund Gurney, and F. W. H. Myers-all graduates of Trinity College, Cambridge-for the express purpose of investigating ‘that large body of debatable phenomena designated by such terms as mesmeric, psychical and spiritualistic … in the same spirit of exact and unimpassioned enquiry which has enabled science to solve so many problems, once no less obscure nor less hotly debated’. Although the membership of the SPR included numerous academics and scientists-most notably William James, Sir William Crookes, and Lord Rayleigh, a Nobel laureate in physics-it had no academic affiliation. Indeed, in the view of their detractors, the ‘psychists’, as they were known, occupied the same fringe as the mediums and mind-readers whose claims it sought to verify-or disclaim."

[@raiinaii]

Mind blowing content

[@joelwallenius2877]

Great video thank you. I rarely watch whole videos! Looking forward to the next one.

[@goodnoodles_]

There's something about the way you talk that's just so calming.

[@NitaSteyn-kn2gp]

She should have a 2nd channel where she does asmr with her voice

[@michaeldillon3113]

' Tibees ' as you were studying physics in Biology , it made me think that I once read a paper where Turning gave a mathematical explanation for differentiation of embryonic cells ( still a complete mystery I believe ) .

[@jeremybauman629]

I worder what Mr. Turing's response would be if we now told him what computers are capable of doing today?

[@Elena-love]

So beautiful video 🤩❤ thanks you 🌹

[@marccasals6366]

When I studied mathematics I read this paper. Thanks you for bringing it back again into my life❤❤❤

[@leif1075]

QUESTION What did you mean at 7:30 when youbsaid we dont ever want to consider machiens tginking..It’s not up to what we think or want right? Machines might be able to think eventually right? We just don't know..can tou clarify what you meant?

[@danmantena4676]

such a great summary!!!

[@mevenstien]

Nice video, I like your insights too, thank you for another enjoyable video.🙂

[@keepthecircleclean]

Awesome!!!!!

[@Zenocrat]

Fabulous video ... thank you!

[@miriam-english]

Thank you so much for covering this paper and for giving the link to it in the information above. I'm certain that the next generation of AIs will have intelligence indistinguishable from humans. We are almost there. I write science fiction. AIs feature prominently in many of my stories. I don't think we have much to fear from AIs (except the possibility of morons in the military making killer AIs) and I look forward to AIs partnering with us to assist us in all our endeavors. One of the great things that I think will come out of the work on AI is a deeper understanding of our own brain, and also the brains of dogs. From dogs we will finally learn effortless selfless love. We will program that into AIs, and even better, we might work out how to program it into ourselves. Great times ahead.

[@NoMan-zw5wb]

Fascinating so this is what admin based his work on in iRobot? Or the voit-comp test in blade runner/ do androids dream of electric sheep by Philip k dock. 16:43

[@aabiji]

In my opinion, the thing that separates machines from thinking machines, is their ability to have (or at least convincingly display) emotions. LLMs today either output the fact that they don't feel anything or make up some story that doesn't fool anyone. I would suggest that an alternate "Turing Test" would be more like a therapy session. Where the human observer is asking the machine how it's feeling and most importantly why. With the objective of trying to determine whether the emotion that is expressed is actually legitimate (still not sure about how one would formally describe that though). We're clearly not there yet, but I think that a future with thinking machines relating with humans in a meaningful way sounds terrifying yet so incredibly exciting.

[@AchaziaAltezzaAdhitama]

I really like your voice and your way of speaking!

[@twinters8]

Amazing video, thank you!

[@Six_Cats_Watching_Birds]

Thank you for all the wonderful content! I discovered your excellent channel first and then I realized that two super cute cats have adopted you and your family a few years ago. Where are those beautiful cats now? I only see them in old videos😿... I' d be very glad to see them again in your such interesting videos! To honour my language I write in Greek also: Ευχαριστούμε για όλο αυτό το υπέροχο περιεχόμενο! Ανακάλυψα πρώτα το εξαιρετικό κανάλι σας και μετά συνειδητοποίησα ότι δύο γατούλες έχουν υιοθετήσει εσάς και την οικογένειά σας. Πού είναι τώρα αυτές οι τρισχαριτωμένες γατούλες; Τις βλέπω μόνο σε παλιότερα βίντεο😿... θα χαρώ πολύ να τις ξαναδώ στα τόσο ενδιαφέροντα βίντεό σας!

[@MegaBeeYT]

Ngl, i really don't like Turings paper, I've read through it myriad times at this point for various different projects I've had to work on, and i get what hes going for, but the imitation game is fundamentally different from the question he originally proposed, and irrelevantely of whag the results of the game are, the act of saying something thinks is not apt... It's a similar issue to the one I have with the Chinese room experiment, where "the machine isn't learning or thinking, it's just following orders" but, we ourselves never technically learn either, we just follow neural pathways, so, in theory we also fall into the failure of that experiment that would state that we never really think or learn either... I have found a couple research papers that do well at the explanation, however the issue is that with constant advancements in neuroscience and neurological studies, we continue learning about how we ourselves think. Never will we be able to state with certainty that a computer thinks untill we can be certain or be sure on what it even means to say that WE think. And as of the current day, month, year, nobody seems to know what that even means

I love your props, and content

[@theA731N]

Neat info. Glad we get to be able to crawl into his thinking bot. I think the random training is the potential of autonomous thought. Although we aren’t truly limited by anything other than our own will to think, it might be no different for a robot of tomorrow. The only other difference is that a natural mind isn’t limited by existence and all of its produce. A robot can develop a mind without a conscious that will be bounded by the limits of unimaginable potential.

[@maydude2]

something that would catch my attention is...hard to describe. It would be whatever the opposite of computation is, I think. A machine? that computes? or solves? problems that can't be solved with an algorithm. I think this would look pretty magical, and it would do very well combined with the computation systems we already have.

[@theparadoxicaltouristtrave9320]

I think that we do feel empathy with mechanical objects. A study had people flip a speaking stuffed animal (Furby), and it would complain mightily. Almost every person in the study (and the reporter who reported in the study) felt very uncomfortable with letting the doll complain.

[@danielwallace1968]

I think the issue is that with what you mentioned, it sounds like these mechanical objects symbolically represent living things, so people are actually empathizing with what the dolls are supposed to represent?

[@justin9605]

Thank you.

[@MDK1360]

That voice makes me feel sleep 😴😴. It's soo cool 🥰

[@whukriede]

I liked this very much, it could be continued. Perhaps discussing the works of Church, Kleene, and Rosser?

[@xtieburn]

I think the Turing test has only grown more interesting with time as it has yet to be passed. ChatGPT cant do it (Though, wasnt really built to attempt it.) and indeed, contrary to many breathless articles written about something or other passing the test, as yet nothing has really gotten close.* When I first read Turings paper decades ago in school I considered the test to be a well defined hurdle as Turing intended, but not much more, but the longer we go with ever more powerful AIs, and yet still we cant complete this simple test from over half a century ago? I cant help feel that it may well be every bit the milestone Turing thought it would be, that we may well refer to them as thinking machines once they manage it, even if it takes us a great deal longer than Turing thought to accomplish it. *Whenever you see someone make the claim, just ask for a transcript, youll usually find yourself not quite so impressed once you do.

[@theparadoxicaltouristtrave9320]

Chat gpt does pass the 70% threshold.

[@DarkSkay]

One question is enough to reveal ChatGPT in its current form as non-human. Trivially, e.g. the set of questions that immediately reveal its super-human speed in maths. More generally, I wonder if a chatroom setting can be designed, where a group of human experts knowing one another are able to consistently reach 100% accuracy in labelling the other chat participants as machine or human (resp. centaur, if that possibility should be included). Perhaps a very basic chat with a private sub-groups function is already sufficient context, to let the expert group's intuition and strategy find all present chatbots quickly and consistently. Intuitively I'd say that given enough time, even with only text chat, a group of humans shouldn't have serious difficulties to detect the absence of will, qualia, social and individual experience in an agent. Will that ever change? Note that having machines trying to fool us sounds exactly like the dangerous thing to avoid, rather than merely detect a posteriori.

[@ownmicelio]

This is soo interesting, we have seen this test in so many books and movies

[@niki1990]

I love your work! ❤

[@jensphiliphohmann1876]

15:20 _...we do have the laws of physics and our bodies are bound by those._ The laws of physics actually don't restrict us more than they enable us in the first place. I actually prefer the lengthy term "fundamental relationships between physical quantities" as this better expresses what the laws of physics actually are. Laws, in the usual sense, are something you can obey or try to break. With fundamental relationships between quantities, you not just cannot break them but the very idea of doing so makes no sense. And only because these "laws" exist, we can foresee what will happen next if we make some particular muscles contract. Moreover, the "laws" enable us to _exist_ in the first place.

[@LVZGIOVEL]

The response to objection 4 subtly points to the fact that it is impossible to separate thinking from believing and furthermore impossible to distinguish knowledge from belief; you believe what you think because you think you know about it, but also act upon your lack of belief to clear out your doubts. A real thinking machine or AI would have beliefs and doubts, a topic very cleverly touched by Asimov in I Robot. Edit: There's also a chapter about a telepath robot, lol

[@weeb3277]

1:13 why not? why wouldn't you see it today?

[@themathguy]

I've heard plenty of people say things to the effect of "the computer thinks this" or "the algorithm thinks that". While it's true that when pressed, they will generally admit that they didn't mean "think" literally -- it has nevertheless entered our language and become a common figure of speech now. And in some cases people do feel some amount of empathy for robots, especially if they're cute and are meant as pets.

[@erikd1012]

This is indeed fascinating... In some regards, I expected more from this paper, due to false assumptions through media and fiction (Ex Machina being one of them), but in other areas, Turing's choice of words, fantasy and practical approach blew me away - not that this wasn't expectable from a genius

[@1DesertPirate]

I am sure you have seen, or at least heard of the movie, I Robot. The writers and creative folks and the director made compassionate people who watched that movie feel empathy toward Sonny. Do I think a thinking machine that can elicit our empathy come to be a reality in the future? Absolutely.