Comment by Xelynega

If no such "magic" exists then why are we content to say that the Turing test is a good test of its existence? This is how I see it:

1. We built a test that we hoped would tell us whether or not an "artificial intelligence" can be told apart from a "real person" by a "real person". Because of technical limitations we decided that the best way for the person to interact with the both to reduce bias would be purely through text.

2. We built an algorithm that compresses the known body of human text into statistical probabilities so that given some input text, it can produce an output text that sounds like what a person would say.

3. This algorithm designed to output likely person-like text output given text input beats the turing test.

I see an accomplishment here, but I think it's very different than the one some epeople on HN and most people outside would see.

The accomplishment I see is that we built a text prediction engine that is good enough to seem human.

The accomplishment I think others see is that we've built an "ai" that beats the "tests to prove there's nothing 'special' about human intelligence"

Why would we be content to say this algorithm beating the Turing test gives us any indication if the human "magic" exists?