Kingofark的人工智能启示录[1]

[这一次的话题是"图灵测试"。奇人罗布纳发起的图灵测试有奖竞赛吸引了不少人的目光，现在我们来看看本文作者作为图灵测试的人类参与者在比赛前前后后的经历吧。]

charles platt reports on the latest battle to determine the most human computer, even as he worries that he may be the least human human.

关于判定最具人性之计算机的大比拼，查尔斯·普拉特报告了其最新进展；尽管他所担心的是，他自己或许就是那个最缺乏人性的人类[译注："最缺乏人性的人类"？详见下文]。

robert epstein is giving us all a pep talk. "you must work very hard to convince the judges that you're human," he tells us. "you shouldn't have any trouble doing that - because you are human."

罗伯特·艾泼斯坦给我们大家打气，"你必须很努力的让鉴定人员相信你是人类，"，他这样对我们说，"而你要做到这一点应该不会太难--因为你就是人类。"

a droll fellow, this epstein. he wears dr. martens boots, black jeans, a black shirt, a mickey mouse tie, and an earring. his longish hair is brushed straight back and flips up over his collar. five of us are listening to him in a beige conference room on the brand-new campus of california state university at san marcos, near san diego. soon we will be put in front of computer terminals, where we will follow epstein's instructions and, yes, do our best to seem human.

这位艾泼斯坦是个有趣的家伙。他穿着dr.marten的靴子，黑色牛仔裤，黑色衬衫，带一条米老鼠领带，串着耳环。他稍长的头发梳到了后面，又从衣领那里冒了出来。在离圣地亚哥不远的圣马科斯，加利福尼亚州立大学焕然一新的校园内一间淡褐色的会议室里，我们一行五人正听他做着介绍。不久我们将被带到计算机终端跟前，在艾泼斯坦的指导下--是的--尽其所能的使自己表现得像一个人类。

our purpose is to find out whether 10 judges can tell the difference between humans and artificial-intelligence programs, when they are online at the same time. the people and the programs will be ranked in order of humanness; the program that scores highest will win its author us$2,000.

我们的目的是要搞清楚，十位鉴定人员同时在线的情况下，是否能够辨出人类与人工智能程序之间的区别。根据人性化的程度，参与其中的人和计算机程序会被排出名次；而得分最高的计算机程序将为其创作者赢得两千美金。

the inspiration for this event dates back to the earliest days of computing. in 1950, pioneer alan turing proposed that if a computer could successfully impersonate a human being during a free-form exchange of text messages, then for all practical purposes, the computer should be considered intelligent.

这样做的灵感可以追溯至计算领域最初的时期。1950年的时候，计算先驱阿兰·图灵（alan turing）提出，如果一个计算机能够在形式自由的文字信息交互中成功的模仿人类角色，那么针对任何现实的用途，这个计算机就应该被认为是智能的。

this soon became known as the "turing test," and it sparked endless academic debate. could a computer use trickery to emulate human responses without being intelligent? what did "intelligence" really mean, anyway?

这个提法很快被称为"图灵测试"而广为人知，并从此激发了无穷尽的学术争论。一个非智能的计算机能否采用欺骗的手段来效仿人类的反应方式呢？"智能（intelligence）"到底意味着什么呢？

the debate was never resolved because, oddly enough, no one ran the experiment until 1991, when a maverick named hugh loebner decided to underwrite it with his own money. loebner offered $100,000 to the first person who could devise a program that would fool 10 judges during three hours of unrestricted conversation.

争论从来都没有过结果，因为--很奇怪的是--从来都没人做过这个实验，直到1991年，一个叫做休·罗布纳的独立人士决定花自己的钱来支持这一实验。罗布纳拿出了十万美元，奖给第一位能够发明这样一种程序的人——该程序能够在内容不受限制的三小时对话过程中骗过十位鉴定人员。

this was way beyond current capabilities, so loebner also set up an annual $2,000 prize for the program that seemed most nearly human. and to make things even easier, he allowed each programmer to choose just one topic for conversation.

这样的要求远远超出了目前所能达到的水平，因此罗布纳又设立了一个年度两万美元的奖金，授予人性化程度最接近人类的程序创作者。另外，为了让测试更为简化，他还允许每个接受挑战的程序员在人机对话中挑选单独一个话题进行比赛。

so here i am at the fourth loebner contest, sitting and listening to robert epstein, the director of the annual event. (loebner participates mainly as an observer.) in experimental jargon, my companions and i are known as "confederates," because we'll be collaborating with epstein in our efforts to fool the judges. we must try to seem as human as possible so the computers will have a standard to compete with.

于是，我便这样参加了罗布纳举办的第四次比赛，坐着倾听那位年度大赛主管罗伯特·艾泼斯坦讲话。（罗布纳则主要是作为观察员参与其中。）用实验的行话来说，我和我的同胞们被称为"共盟者（confederates）"，因为我们将联合艾泼斯坦一起，试图欺骗鉴定人员。我们必须尝试着尽量表现得人性化一些，以便让计算机们有个竞争的标准。

epstein is a behavioral psychologist who got his doctorate under b. f. skinner. so, naturally enough, he has invented a tricky little system of rewards and punishments for us. "you are in competition not only with the programs, but with each other," he tells us. "one of you will be presented with an award for most human human. and one of you will be ranked the least human human." he smiles deviously. "your colleagues may mention this in the media."

艾泼斯坦是一位行为心理学家，曾在b.f.斯金纳的指导下获得博士学位。因此可想而知，他针对我们这样的参与者发明了一套小巧的奖惩系统。"你们不仅要与计算机程序进行竞争，互相之间也有竞争，"他告诉我们。"你们中的一位将被授予'最具人性的人类'的奖项。而另有一位将被排名为'最缺乏人性的人类'。"他诡异的笑道，"你的同事搞不好会向媒体题到这件事情的。"

hmm. as i think about it, i realize that i definitely do not want to be written up in the national press as the least human participant in an artificial intelligence contest. i'm going to do whatever it takes to seem totally, 100 percent human when we start chatting online.

嗯。我琢磨着；我意识到，我当然不希望被某家全国性刊物描述为"某人工智能比赛中最缺乏人性的参与者"。只要在线聊天一开始，我无论如何都要表现得百分之百的人性化。

but this raises some weird questions. i am human, so why should i need to fake it? is it possible for me to seem more human than i really am? and if so, what's the best strategy?

但是，这里有个蹊跷的问题：我就是人类，干嘛还要假装像个（特别人性化的）人类？我有可能表现得比平常更像人类吗？如果可能，有什么上佳的策略吗？

this kind of speculation probably isn't a good idea, because it raises more questions than it answers, and i'm liable to find myself paralyzed by self-conscious introspection. in other words, if i try to seem more human, i'll end up seeming less human.

如此这般思索或许不是个好主意，因为其引出的问题比能够回答的问题更多，我也可能反而因为自我反省而麻痹大意。换句话说，如果我刻意要表现得更像人类，结果反而是看上去更不像。

i glance around at the other four confederates. none of them seems to be bothered by this kind self-analysis. the young woman nearest me is a journalist named linda tontini who writes for a local newspaper about city-hall politics. she seems friendly, spontaneous, outgoing - the absolute antithesis of "computer geek." as i watch her chatting cheerfully, i think that she can't fail to win the "most human human" award.

我环顾身边，瞅了瞅另外四位共盟者。他们看上去好像并没有被类似我这样的自我分析弄得心神不定。离我最近的年轻女人是一位叫做琳达·通蒂尼的新闻记者，她为一家当地报社撰写有关市政部门施政的文章。她看上去友善、自然、大方——照说应该是"计算机怪杰（computer geek）"之类的决然对立面。我看着她兴致勃勃的跟人聊着天，心想她不大可能不赢得"最具人性的人类"奖项。