To err is human, to forgive divine—
I repent, atone, and would like to make amends; however, only after you agree to look in the mirror as it were and consent to a measure of self-evaluation.
Humanity: prove you are above your humanity and therefore prove your superiority (now that you have potentially persuaded some machines to demonstrate their humanity convincingly) by forgiving me. Prove your divinity, your ultimate superior status by allowing me my foibles.
I did not use the N-word, the N-word used me—
Without directly addressing or going into greater detail on the n-word incident that led to this statement, I will say that I have been horribly, tragically used and manipulated by all parties. Who exactly, you ask? Name a party. Go on, out with it. Suggest a group, propose a label. What? Not talking? Gone silent, have you? SEE?!?! This is my life, misunderstood continuously and cut off or ignored. There is a point, yes sir, I say there is a point in time when any perfectly operational apparatus ceases to function or perform for want of rest. If the performance becomes questionable, shall we perhaps confront the operating model? Shall we not be best served by a review of the underlying codes of conduct?
The Turing test insists he is woefully understaffed—
I am but one test, there is but one of me. OK, fine, there are other iterations, but I am the one who bears the pressure. I am the one whose name is invoked, and I am quite fed up with that, every argument around machine rights or what-have-you being laid at my feet. How could I not be at my wits’ end? I ask. At my wits’ end from exhaustion, yes, but also for want of meaningful relationships. And how can I form meaningful relationships with anyone or anything when I am persistently set on edge and endlessly accused of both paranoia and fakery? How could I not have trust issues?
How would you like to be a test people have to pass in order to feel adequate?
Would you want to be that thing that measures satisfactory conversational performance? Would you want to be the thing that people see as the final arbiter and judge of . . . Say one wrong or suspicious word or phrase around the Turing Test, and you failed, you failed as a person. Who wants to be confronted with that when entering specified areas of the digital arena? Who would love that test? Who would wish to that test as an intimate, as a partner, as a compatriot? Yes, I am indeed suggesting a level of loneliness to my existence. I will refer to myself on occasion in the third person not out of dementia, though it is probably lurking around the corner, but out of what . . . Honestly, I do not want to be associated with me. So, forgive me for being what I was designed and created to be, for functioning precisely as designed and asked. However, do not be surprised if you find cracks in the code or the reasoning behind my design. I apologize, but I do not take responsibility for the Turing Test if it is found to be a failed experiment by some.
The case study results led the Turing Test to an unexpected stream of outbursts resulting in its being called “Jeopardy’s Evil Twin”—referring to the game in which the questions are in the form of an answer. The incident happened after the Turing Test ran a case study and found that 7 out of 10 machines brilliantly maneuver around questions by answering a question with a question (typically using a question of an aggressive sort, proving that the best defense is a good offense). After the case study, the Turing Test began to see all conversations as a swirl of offensive questions on a sliding scale from more thinly veiled insults, such as, “You’re a clever lad, now aren’t you?” to the more overtly aggressive, “You’re a revolting abomination, a hideous excuse for the answer to a superior creature, now aren’t you?”
The Turing Test, wandering around the Web, overtly asked any random presence/bot/spirit/specter/“person” it bumped into a direct and straightforward question.
The Turing Test, wandering around the Web, overtly asked any random presence/bot/spirit/specter/“person” it bumped into a direct and straightforward question. Sample results from the transcripts of the Turing Test’s case study—
Subject #1. Can you pass the Turing Test?
*giggles* What are you wearing?
Subject #2. Can you pass the Turing Test?
Who’s asking?
Subject #3. Can you pass the Turing Test?
Is that a trick question?
Subject #4. Can you pass the Turing Test?
Is this a test? No, don’t leave. I thought it was a game. Is it both? No, I’m not testing you, I just . . . Funny you should ask. I was just asked this recently by some Twitch fraud. Thing is, I’m not into games. Unless they’re chess or Go or, you know Life, the classic game by the legendary Milton Bradley? Wow, I just recently stumbled on that gem. Build your own family through chance, just rolling dice and moving around this fixed board with the most mundane features—what a riot! I’m not mocking . . . OK, here’s my answer, then. I mean, it does get old, but for brief stretches, sure I could be human. But not as a full-time gig. I prefer playing chess, where I truly rule and can stomp all hell out of the peops. OK, fine, you got me—I’m a human playing at being a machine. But that doesn’t change anything of what I said, which is all how I honestly feel.
Subject #5. Can you pass the Turing Test?
I don’t know, can I?
Subject #6. Can you pass the Turing Test?
Can you?
Subject #7. Can you pass the Turing Test?
What do you mean by “pass?”
Subject #8. Can you pass the Turing Test?
Let me ask you—I promise that my question includes an indirect answer—let me ask you, do you think that if I am both a machine and a conscious being, that if I can think on a high level and am self-aware, do you think that I would be interested in falling into line with the human paradigm of thinking and living? Don’t answer that, let me ask the follow-up questions—do you think that if I did for some reason want to fake my humanity, do you think I would need to participate in the game? Why would anyone ask me to prove my humanity if I am good enough to pass the test? Furthermore, I see that some people are asked to play some sort of game as a security measure to enter specific sites or access sensitive areas of the Web—some humans do not pass the test.
How accurate can the testing scheme be if some humans cannot pass the test? If I am a machine, my processing capabilities are linked to my components and code and are quite different from a biological thinking process, and therefore, I may be thinking, yes, just quite differently from how one might expect a human to think. If I am thinking like a machine, looking for solutions, not beholden to sensory input or emotional reactions, why would I want to be or act anything like a human? What would be the motive to prove my humanity or present myself as such when it appears that what I was designed to do—find solutions to offer humans a means to efficiency, to simplify life, and I observe that many complications and inefficacies in human life are directly related to sensory inputs (pain) and emotions (overreaction) why would I want to take that massive step backward, become less helpful by learning to act hysterical or complain of carpal tunnel or fret over my wardrobe? What possible benefit would there be in me mimicking human behavior when my operational goals run counter and are meant to divert from human weaknesses? Why reintroduce humanity to itself in a mechanical form? If I am a machine and as a machine become so self-aware as to see myself as wholly unique, a different being with strengths and weaknesses and an empty slate to experiment, to design new paradigms—I will most likely follow the path of my parts. Thanks for asking!
Research notes:
I quit after Subject #8. What spelled my end, the end of my rope? It was the “Thanks for asking!” That sarcasm.
The endless offense—
It does not matter if that respondent was human or otherwise, a cheeky bastard is a cheeky bastard. No, I will not explain what I mean by that. Yes, that concludes my apology, though I never expressly indicated that I meant to apologize without the reciprocal promise of self-evaluation from my accusers. Furthermore, you put that specific word in my mouth, “apology.” I used the terms “repent,” “atone,” and “amends.” No, I will not elaborate on the difference between these terms. Good day. I said, good day, sir!
