The Turing test is now considered too easy to be a real test of AI. In other words, these days we think that an algorithm that can't beat a human at "being human" is pretty bad.
No, that's a bad summary. The Turing test is not a great test of being human.
For me, that's the definition of 30 minutes of being human. And yes, it illustrates why being human for 60 minutes, never mind a year, is a more difficult problem than 30 minutes. But it's the same a real human would perform.
Would there be extra value in dropping these requirements? Dropping the text-only requirement, do it for a week or two, and maybe even imitate a human known to the panel? Yes, absolutely.
A coin flip would be a much simpler concrete test - you are human for the next five minutes if it comes up heads. For me, that's the definition of 5 minutes of being a human.
The problem is "for me" is no less (and probably a lot more) absurd/weird than the philosophy or religion you dismiss. No one I know of (until now) thinks the Turing Test is about "being human".
Rather, it's about whether machines can think. Or imitate thought - hence the name, the Imitation Game. And it just shows the limitation of the time - how could Alan Turing predict the incredible advances in data collection and parallel processing that would allow for giant statistical models that can imitate the output of thinking, rather than the thinking itself?
And then there's human thinking, like everyone else, EXCEPT Alan Turing, you don't discuss the actual thinking process. There's just this magical thing "to think" that humans do.
BUT is human thinking really magical? There's a few basic tests that you can do with yourself. Pick a balcony, high up.
Would you die if you jumped off that balcony? Answer: yes.
Clearly thinking is not based on with trial and error.
Next: Would you die if I make you hold a 1kg block of 10% pure uranium for an hour? Most people will answer yes. The real answer is no. This won't affect you to any significant extent (sunbathing for 1hr is far worse), and there's people who live their whole lives on soil that gives off more radiation than that (there's such places in the DRC and in Iran, both have villages on top of that soil).
Or more dramatically: would you die if you jumped into the cooling pool of a nuclear reaction currently generating 3 Gigawatts of power? People always answer yes. The answer is: if you don't come within 10cm of the actual fuel rods you're actually safer in the cooling water than outside of the reactor. It is VERY safe. In fact, some inspections are done by divers.
Clearly thinking is neither rational, or at the very least, it's not working from first principles (because water radiation dampening for both gamma rays AND neutrons is enormous)
Can you teach people "wrong" reactions, "wrong" thinking based on feeding them bad data? Yes, in fact I feel like this is often on display.
You will find that human thinking IS imitation + extrapolation. Humans (and most animals for that matter) fundamentally work like that 99.99% of the time.
You can keep going like this and you will come to a conclusion that completely destroys your argument: your brain "thinks" ... based on previous data it's collected, on parallel processing and your brain IS a giant statistical model (read Bishop's book). Why would your reasoning apply to the algorithmic way of doing this but not to the "wetware" way of doing it?
I'm not sure where you got this mistaken idea that holding a block of uranium for an hour unlocks immortality, but I'm afraid "most people" got it right. The answer is yes. Absolutely you would die. You would also die if you didn't hold the block, but so too if you did.
Was this comment written by a chatbot? It is not at all in line with human thought.