I said the Turing test was weak—in fact, I linked an entire essay dedicated to describing exactly why the Turing test was weak.
Irrelevant. It doesn’t address the relevant concept—whether it is ‘weak’ or ‘strong’ makes no difference.
He seems to have focussed in on minutiae of what he considers essential to intelligence (like the ability to recognize letters in different fonts, a project he spent years working on at IU), and let the big ideas he explored in GEB go by the wayside.
Can someone who wants to work on the big ideas get funding? Can someone who wants to work on the big ideas find a place to start? The important questions are often Gordian knots that don’t offer convenient starting points for progress.
Academics need to demonstrate that they’ve accomplished things to retain their positions. Even once tenure is attained, you don’t get the rewards of academia without publication.
Academics need to demonstrate that they’ve accomplished things to retain their positions. Even once tenure is attained, you don’t get the rewards of academia without publication.