“That’s because language is the most natural thing for humans,” Translated CEO Marco Trombetti said at a conference in Orlando, Florida, in December. Language is one of the most difficult AI challenges, but a computer that could close that gap could theoretically show signs of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). One such metric, defined by Translated, a Rome-based translation company, is an AI’s ability to translate speech at the accuracy of a human. However, some AI researchers are on the hunt for signs of reaching singularity measured by AI progress approaching the skills and ability comparable to a human. The tricky thing about AI singularity (and why it borrows terminology from black hole physics) is that it’s enormously difficult to predict where it begins and nearly impossible to know what’s beyond this technological “event horizon.” This slippery concept describes the moment AI exceeds beyond human control and rapidly transforms society.
In the world of artificial intelligence, the idea of “singularity” looms large.
An AI that can translate speech as well as a human could change society.This may help quantify the speed toward singularity. A translation company developed a metric, Time to Edit (TTE), to calculate the time it takes for professional human editors to fix AI-generated translations compared to human ones.By one unique metric, we could approach technological singularity by the end of this decade, if not sooner.Consequently, the first test is immune to many of the philosophical criticisms on the basis of which the (so-called) `Turing Test' has been dismissed. The first test realizes a possibility that philosophers have overlooked: a test that uses a human's linguistic performance in setting an empirical test of intelligence, but does not make behavioral similarity to that performance the criterion of intelligence. This is more appropriate because the question under consideration is what would count as machine intelligence. This is because the features of intelligence upon which it relies are resourcefulness and a critical attitude to one's habitual responses thus the test's applicablity is not restricted to any particular species, nor does it presume any particular capacities. The two tests can yield different results it is the first, neglected test that provides the more appropriate indication of intelligence. I show here that the first test described in that much-discussed paper is in fact not equivalent to the second one, which has since become known as `the Turing Test'. On a literal reading of `Computing Machinery and Intelligence', Alan Turing presented not one, but two, practical tests to replace the question `Can machines think?' He presented them as equivalent.
0 kommentar(er)
