Warning: grumping about something really abstruse incoming.

Now, I totally agree that the Turing test, as it’s conventionally depicted in  media, is humanocentric and not a great way to assess self-awareness. What does the ability to impersonate a human actually tell us?

The trouble is, the way the Turing test is conventionally depicted in media is nothing like how it was originally formulated.

The way it’s typically shown, a human talks to an unknown third party and tries to guess whether that party is a human or a computer.

As it was originally formulated, however, the test is more like a game.

In his paper, Turing outlines what he calls “the Imitation Game”. The game involves two parties, A and B, and an interrogator with whom both parties can communicate via teletype (or, in modern terms, by text-based IM).

A and B cannot communicate directly with each other, but each can ask the interrogator questions about the other, or request that the interrogator relay questions on their behalf.

(The interrogator is, of course, under no obligation to relay such questions accurately, nor to honestly report the other party’s responses.)

The interrogator’s role is to determine some specific fact about the identities of A and B. A’s goal is to assist the interrogator in coming to the correct conclusion, while B’s goal is to trick the interrogator into guessing wrongly.

The interrogator does not know which party is the helpful one and which party is the deceptive one.

In the basic form of the Imitation Game as described by Turing, one of the parties is a man and the other is a woman, and the interrogator is tasked with correctly determining their respective genders. In the modified version known as the Turing test, one party is human and the other is a computer. It’s typically further stipulated that the computer must take the deceptive role.

(The arguments for why the computer must be the deceptive one are long and complicated and not worth getting into here - just go with it for now.)

Basically, in its proper form, the Turing test isn’t merely testing the computer’s ability to impersonate a human. It’s also testing for empathy, theory of mind, and the capacity for social manipulation.

Merely successfully impersonating a human would allow the computer to win 50% of the time at most, as the interrogator would then be reduced to blind guessing; to consistently win the game, the computer must additionally determine what the interrogator thinks a computer would act like, then guide the interrogator to interpret the human party’s responses as fitting that profile.

I don’t know about you, but I’d be pretty impressed at a computer that could pull all that off.


Hooray hooray, it’s time for Friday Reads!  I’m finally getting around to Central Station – shamefully late, I know.

Code Switch’s Karen Grigsby Bates says Yaa Gyasi’s Homegoing is “the epic you’ve been waiting for.

Her colleague Shereen Marisol Meraji just finished Isabel Allende’s The Japanese Lover, and says “God, I loved that gorgeous story. I want it to be the lover I keep coming back to. Over and over again. Now reading Half of a Yellow Sun by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie – on page 61 and enjoying every word, so far.”

Mama Susan Stamberg is getting artsy with the cataloge for an upcoming exhibit of work by the painter William Merritt Chase.

And Friendly Local Bookperson Barrie Hardymon reports, “I’m trashy and just finished the deliciously absurd Swan Huntley book, We Could Be Beautiful, which is part Gone Girl (Boy), and part comedy of manners, and should be beach-read by a lady with the Chanel towel.”

What are YOU taking home this weekend?

– Petra

tumdrake asked:

if u want a michael cera story heres one: my friend goes to a liberal arts college in new york and got invited to a high up party and michael cera was there and fucking w a s t e d, he goes up to my friend, martini in hand, looks her up and down, focuses right on her tits, then says in his michael cera voice 'wanna fuck?'

a wild michael cera appears once every other full moon to go to parties and get wasted

anonymous asked:

Notice the different effect true love had on Killian and Emma? Killian became the man he always wanted to be because of Emma, but he stayed a pirate/ruthless with Milah. Killian believed in Emma unlike Neal (with the super power at least), Neal was the reason Emma stopped trusting people and built up her walls but Killian stayed with her through everything (her stubbornness) and broke down her walls.

Both Emma and Killian became the people they were always meant to be because of each other. Because they always have believed in each other. And I feel like their experiences with their first loves were integral to them meeting and being True Love. So no matter what happened with Milah and Neal, no matter how some of it ended up not so pleasantly (especially in the case of how Neal treated Emma), they were important pieces of the puzzle that ultimately brought Emma and Killian together.

Paul Clement on ‘The Big Interview’ podcast: Part 1 | May 26, 2016
- iTunes

Paul Clement, Carlo Ancelotti’s former assistant, was a guest on Bumper Graham’s podcast, where he spoke extensively about his time at Real Madrid. The first of two parts went up on Thursday; the second will be released on Saturday.

What players liked and didn’t like about trainings (15:28)
“It’s quite simple to explain. Particularly at the top level, the top players love competition, and they don’t like long periods of tactical work done in big spaces. It’s not more complicated than that.” 

“At Madrid, we liked to encourage competition out in training, but it went outside of training as well. And this is something the players themselves used to do. Before training (and after sometimes as well), they would play football tennis in the gym. We had a small gym with an astro turf, floors quite tight. They’d use the walls as well… very competitive. They’d play one vs one or two against two. 

Álvaro Arbeloa was really the leader of this. He, along with a number of other players, would play very competitively before and after training to the point where it became a bug for them. You know, they loved to do it. So we had to calm it down, and eventually remove the net. They were doing it too much, so we banned football tennis for a little while because they were playing too much. Then they erected a badminton net, and that became the new way of competing with each other. It would be badminton. That was the nature of the players we were dealing with.”

What was the threat there – overexertion or tempers running high? 
“No, it was more about the load, you know… us controlling the load. We were very methodical about the way that we planned. We didn’t cater for that as part of their training program, so if they’re playing football tennis 45 minutes before training, and then they go play another hour afterwards… you know that’s a significant load in addition to what they’ve doing on the training pitch.”

How much would Ronaldo, Bale practice free kicks?
“Oh, they practiced almost without fail before a game. The day before a game there would be 15 to 20 minutes of central free kicks. Sergio Ramos would be in that group.. so Bale, Ronaldo, and Ramos with a goalkeeper before every game. We didn’t like the group getting any bigger than that because there’d be too much queuing, and it wasn’t necessary for massive numbers to practice that skill because ultimately, you’re looking at two or three players that are going to step up and have the opportunity to take it in the game anyway. Multiply that by 60 games, and that’s a good amount of practice.”

Listen to hear more about his day-to-day schedule, Ronaldo’s failed trial as striker which in turn led to adapting Di María’s role in midfield, and other tactical breakdowns.