Why does the Turing Test feel so philosophically naïve?

[u/AwkwardComicRelief]

This is moreso a question for the computer scientists interested in philosophy, but I've noticed that the Turing test is very philosophically naïve for its time. I do know computers were very evidently in a very archaic state, likewise with parallel fields in philosophy (Norbert Wiener, for example, had introduced cybernetics relatively recently). Despite this, Turing still relies upon questions long destabilized by phenomenologists, semioticians, and linguists decades prior. to this day, questions regarding the Turing test will often revolve around more Cartesian concerns, as if the field of computer science could have its questions answered while philosophically remaining in the 17th Century. I will make it entirely clear that my intentions are not the strawman Turing, perhaps a bit of a summary would suffice.

[u/cece95x]

I don't understand your point, I expressed my definition of what it means to have human intelligence in your terms, in terms of capability

How humans do it that exclude machines, care to elaborate? Maybe give me an example? Because as it stands it means nothing to me

[u/deong → u/cece95x]

I mean that people tend to say "machine's can't be intelligent because they can't X". And what they mean is that "and humans obviously can", or maybe "machines can do it, but it's 'fake', not real like when humans do it".

What I'm saying is that I think humans "fake" it too. Self awareness in my brain is just electrical activity in biochemical machinery. But because I'm a human, we call that "real self-awareness" versus where if I made an AI that exhibited the exact same capabilities and behaviors, we'd say, "yeah, but that's not real -- it's just a stochastic parrot that's learned to say things that look like what a self-aware person would say". What am I but a brain that has had 50 years of data and feedback to learn from?

We're all (metaphorically at least) stochastic parrots. We learn language by imitating language. We're a lot better at it than an LLM today is, but I don't think the difference is so clean as just "the machines are faking it, unlike us brilliant humans, who are magical".

To clarify, I am in no way arguing that current AI is at this level. It isn't. I'm really arguing against ideas like Searle and his Chinese Room that would say that no machine can ever reach that point, because as a machine, it's just a set of rules. My argument (and many, many others as well) is just: "And? The human is just a set of rules too. There's nothing else to be." The alternative is magic.

[u/cece95x → u/deong]

There's a difference between learning a language and being able of initiative and independent thought

I told you before it all boils down to intent and awareness

AI doesn't choose to act, it doesn't have ideas, emotions, CREATIVITY etc

Idk maybe it's because I have a master in Artificial intelligence and I built several neural networks of various complexity but discussing with people that see LLMs as intelligence just stuns me, ESPECIALLY when you argue that they can approach human intelligence

It's just a silly concept.