And what are the results? Well, Turing said that if a computer could fool a human 30 percent of the time that it was a human, then it passes the Turing test for intelligence.
We have poems on the bot or not database that have fooled 65 percent of human readers into thinking it was written by a human. So, I think we have an answer to our question. According to the logic of the Turing test, can a computer write poetry? Well, yes, absolutely it can.
But if you're feeling a little bit uncomfortable with this answer, that's OK. If you're having a bunch of gut reactions to it, that's also okay because this isn't the end of the story.
Let's play our third and final test. Again, you're going to have to read and tell me which you think is human. Red flags the reason for pretty flags. So hands up if you think Poem 1 was written by a human.
Whoa, that's a lot more people. So you'd be surprised to find that Poem 1 was written by the very human poet Gertrude Stein. Now before we go on, let me describe very quickly and simply, how RKCP works.
So RKCP is an algorithm designed by Ray Kurzweil, who's a director of engineering at Google and a firm believer in artificial intelligence. So, you give RKCP a source text, it analyzes the source text in order to find out how it uses language, and then it regenerates language that emulates that first text. So in the poem we just saw before, Poem 2, the one that you all thought was human, it was fed a bunch of poems by a poet called Emily Dickinson and looked at the way she used language, learned the model, and then it regenerated a model according to that same structure. But the important thing to know about RKCP is that it doesn't know the meaning of the words it's using.
The language is just raw material, it could be Chinese, it could be in Swedish, it could be the collected language from your Facebook feed for one day. It's just raw material. And nevertheless, it's able to create a poem that seems more human than Gertrude Stein's poem, and Gertrude Stein is a human. So what we've done here is, more or less, a reverse Turing test.
So Gertrude Stein, who's a human, is able to write a poem that fools a majority of human judges into thinking that it was written by a computer. Therefore, according to the logic of the reverse Turing test, Gertrude Stein is a computer. I think that's fair enough. So far we've had humans that write like humans, we have computers that write like computers, we have computers that write like humans, but we also have, perhaps most confusingly, humans that write like computers.
So what do we take from all of this? Do we take that William Blake is somehow more of a human than Gertrude Stein? Or that Gertrude Stein is more of a computer than William Blake? Laughter These are questions I've been asking myself for around two years now, and I don't have any answers.
But what I do have are a bunch of insights about our relationship with technology. So my first insight is that, for some reason, we associate poetry with being human.
So that when we ask, "Can a computer write poetry? How do we say who or what can be part of this category? I also believe that Alan Turing understood this, and that when he devised his test back in , he was doing it as a philosophical provocation. So my second insight is that, when we take the Turing test for poetry, we're not really testing the capacity of the computers because poetry-generating algorithms, they're pretty simple and have existed, more or less, since the s. What we are doing with the Turing test for poetry, rather, is collecting opinions about what constitutes humanness.
So, what I've figured out, we've seen this when earlier today, we saw that William Blake is more of a human than Gertrude Stein. Of course, this doesn't mean that William Blake was actually more human or that Gertrude Stein was more of a computer. It simply means that the category of the human is unstable. This has led me to understand that the human is not a cold, hard fact.
Rather, it is something that's constructed with our opinions and something that changes over time. That is to say, the category of the human is unstable. So my final insight is that the computer, more or less, works like a mirror that reflects any idea of a human that we show it. We show it Emily Dickinson, it gives Emily Dickinson back to us. We show it William Blake, that's what it reflects back to us. We show it Gertrude Stein, what we get back is Gertrude Stein.
More than any other bit of technology, the computer is a mirror that reflects any idea of the human we teach it.
La corsa diminuisce il rischio di cancro. Che cosa sono gli stracchini di Broglio? Il mutismo selettivo non era una maledizione, ma un regalo. One evening, leaving the cathedral, he sees a young woman who seems a dead ringer for his wife. And I realized how much can be grown here because the vast amount of vegetables, fruits and herbs I was relying on in the supermarket can be grown here, and the soil can support this kind of life more than I ever thought.
So I'm sure a lot of you have been hearing a lot about artificial intelligence recently. And much of the conversation is kind of, Can we build it? Can we build an intelligent computer? Can we build a creative computer? What we seem to be asking over and over is can we build a human-like computer? But what we've seen just now is that the human is not a scientific fact, that it's an ever-shifting, concatenating idea and one that changes over time.
So that when we begin to grapple with the ideas of artificial intelligence in the future, we shouldn't only be asking ourselves, "Can we build it? Applause Translation - Italian Ho una domanda: Pensateci un attimo e subito vi verranno in mente molte altre domande: Ma queste sono domande alle quali le persone dedicano tutta la loro vita per rispondere, non un singolo TED Talk.
Quindi dobbiamo provare in un altro modo. Qui sopra abbiamo due poesie. Dovrete dirmi quale appartiene all'uno e all'altro. Facciamo un tentativo, cominciate a leggere Poesia 1: Alzate le mani se pensate che la poesia 1 sia stata scritta da un essere umano. Ok, la maggior parte di voi. Alzate le mani se pensate che la poesia 2 sia stata scritta da un umano. La maggior parte di voi ha indovinato, forse era troppo facile. Proviamo con un altro test. Se pensate che la prima poesia sia stata scritta da un essere umano, alzate la mano.
Ok Se pensate che la seconda poesia sia stata scritta da un essere umano, alzate la mano. Nel io e il mio amico Benjamin Laird abbiamo creato un Turing test on line per la poesia. Si chiama "bot o no", lo puoi vedere e fare per conto tuo.
Ti viene mostrata una poesia, tu non sai se sia stata scritta da un essere umano o un computer e devi indovinare. Centinaia e centinaia di persone hanno fatto questo test on line, di cui abbiamo i risultati. Quali sono i risultati?