Could You Pass an Ideological Turing Test? Watch

PicardianSocialist
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
I've been thinking a lot recently about the idea of an ideological Turing test. For those who don't know, a Turing test is a way of testing an AI to see if it answer questions in a way indistinguishable from a human. In an ideological test an individual attempts to articulate a view he disagrees with. For instance, a die-hard Thatcherite might write an essay outlining the reasons why people should vote for the labour party.

While I definitely couldn't pass an ideological Turing test on every topic, it's definitely something I aspire to. I feel that its a mark of intellectual integrity to be able to properly articulate the argument of one's opponent.

I'm bringing this up because I get a definite sense that majority of TSR would fail an ideological Turing test on most issues, and are unfortunately fairly representative of society as a whole in this regard.

What about you? Do you feel you could pass an ideological Turing test? Regardless is it something to see as desirable?
0
reply
yo radical one
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
I reckon I could...
0
reply
Georgie_M
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
(Original post by PicardianSocialist)
I've been thinking a lot recently about the idea of an ideological Turing test. For those who don't know, a Turing test is a way of testing an AI to see if it answer questions in a way indistinguishable from a human. In an ideological test an individual attempts to articulate a view he disagrees with. For instance, a die-hard Thatcherite might write an essay outlining the reasons why people should vote for the labour party.

While I definitely couldn't pass an ideological Turing test on every topic, it's definitely something I aspire to. I feel that its a mark of intellectual integrity to be able to properly articulate the argument of one's opponent.

I'm bringing this up because I get a definite sense that majority of TSR would fail an ideological Turing test on most issues, and are unfortunately fairly representative of society as a whole in this regard.

What about you? Do you feel you could pass an ideological Turing test? Regardless is it something to see as desirable?
Hmm that is interesting, I think for politics it would be easy because we here them spout their crap all the time so you would merely have to mimic that. Certain topics though I must agree I just don't 'get' the other perspective and would find it hard to argue for.

I think it is an important skill because being able to do this means you are probably quite open minded and receptive - therefore making informed decisions not based purely on your ideological perspective.
0
reply
mud man 666
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
Step 1 - Identify axioms.
Step 2 - Communicate axioms.

Not exactly difficult is it?

i.e here's one for a religious guy who doesn't like abortion.

1. Abortion is murder because the life of every human being is sacred (look at how I define the foetus as a human being).

i.e here's one for a Muslim who is arguing with an atheist.

1. The Quran says blah blah therefore you're wrong.

i.e here's one for a nationalist:

1. The Nation is important to our sense of identity, a shared culture is important and patrioitism is good because it encourages mutual feelings of respect in times of crisis.

i.e here's one for a racist.

1. White people are superior (because they are responsible for the great inventions in society), we need to get rid of the black people because they're inferior and corrupt our culture.
0
reply
Asciant
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
(Original post by PicardianSocialist)
I've been thinking a lot recently about the idea of an ideological Turing test. For those who don't know, a Turing test is a way of testing an AI to see if it answer questions in a way indistinguishable from a human. In an ideological test an individual attempts to articulate a view he disagrees with. For instance, a die-hard Thatcherite might write an essay outlining the reasons why people should vote for the labour party.

While I definitely couldn't pass an ideological Turing test on every topic, it's definitely something I aspire to. I feel that its a mark of intellectual integrity to be able to properly articulate the argument of one's opponent.

I'm bringing this up because I get a definite sense that majority of TSR would fail an ideological Turing test on most issues, and are unfortunately fairly representative of society as a whole in this regard.

What about you? Do you feel you could pass an ideological Turing test? Regardless is it something to see as desirable?
I could, easily, I spend half the time I spend debating arguing the opposite views to mine just because there is nobody around to argue it, and I like arguing. It is just the same, in reverse.
0
reply
mud man 666
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
(Original post by Asciant)
I could, easily, I spend half the time I spend debating arguing the opposite views to mine just because there is nobody around to argue it, and I like arguing. It is just the same, in reverse.
Good sir, you should read the Academic Skeptics who engaged in this practice, they desired truth and to do so they presented both arguments fairly and weighed them.
0
reply
PicardianSocialist
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#7
(Original post by Georgie_M)
Hmm that is interesting, I think for politics it would be easy because we here them spout their crap all the time so you would merely have to mimic that.
I see your point, But I think the aim is not to be able to mimic internet trolls, but informed academics.

For instance, I read a post earlier where someone was complaining that people in favour of immigration where stupid. This person claimed that people supported immigration because they believed that immigrants would spend money, thereby stimulating the economy, and that this was wrong because British people would have just spent that money anyway. Now, I don't doubt that someone on TSR has made that argument in support of immigration, but no economist worth his salt ever would.
0
reply
PicardianSocialist
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#8
(Original post by mud man 666)
Step 1 - Identify axioms.
Step 2 - Communicate axioms.

Not exactly difficult is it?

i.e here's one for a religious guy who doesn't like abortion.

1. Abortion is murder because the life of every human being is sacred (look at how I define the foetus as a human being).

i.e here's one for a Muslim who is arguing with an atheist.

1. The Quran says blah blah therefore you're wrong.

i.e here's one for a nationalist:

1. The Nation is important to our sense of identity, a shared culture is important and patrioitism is good because it encourages mutual feelings of respect in times of crisis.

i.e here's one for a racist.

1. White people are superior (because they are responsible for the great inventions in society), we need to get rid of the black people because they're inferior and corrupt our culture.
The challenge is not just identifying the axioms (which is trickier than you might imagine) but identifying the justification for those axioms. For instance, Muslims don't just believe that the Quran is the word of God, they believe this for specific reasons. Passing an ideological Turing test for a Muslim would not just involve saying the Quran is the word of God, but showing a detailed knowledge of various arguments for the existence of God and their nuances.
0
reply
mud man 666
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
(Original post by PicardianSocialist)
The challenge is not just identifying the axioms (which is trickier than you might imagine) but identifying the justification for those axioms. For instance, Muslims don't just believe that the Quran is the word of God, they believe this for specific reasons. Passing an ideological Turing test for a Muslim would not just involve saying the Quran is the word of God, but showing a detailed knowledge of various arguments for the existence of God and their nuances.
There is no justification for axioms... they're assumptions. Muslims assume that they can know God and that Allah is God and that the Quran is the word of God and subject everything to this axiom.
0
reply
Georgie_M
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
(Original post by PicardianSocialist)
I see your point, But I think the aim is not to be able to mimic internet trolls, but informed academics.

For instance, I read a post earlier where someone was complaining that people in favour of immigration where stupid. This person claimed that people supported immigration because they believed that immigrants would spend money, thereby stimulating the economy, and that this was wrong because British people would have just spent that money anyway. Now, I don't doubt that someone on TSR has made that argument in support of immigration, but no economist worth his salt ever would.
Haha well you are most definitely talking about something completely different to what I thought.

What you are suggesting is people academically studying fields in order to present an informed argument. To be honest I find this idea less interesting because of course if you studied the academic material you could present it with ease. I don't really understand how you would not be able to do that?

I thought you meant in a more philosophical sense of overcoming your instincts and own perspective. But physically of course you can learn material and present it even if you disagree with the findings.
0
reply
PicardianSocialist
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#11
(Original post by mud man 666)
There is no justification for axioms... they're assumptions. Muslims assume that they can know God and that Allah is God and that the Quran is the word of God and subject everything to this axiom.
That's not necessarily true. I'm sure some Muslims are that naive, but there have also been centuries worth of Muslim philosophers who have articulated a variety of arguments in favour of the existence of God.
0
reply
mud man 666
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 years ago
#12
(Original post by PicardianSocialist)
That's not necessarily true. I'm sure some Muslims are that naive, but there have also been centuries worth of Muslim philosophers who have articulated a variety of arguments in favour of the existence of God.
All of these have been under the assumption that God can be deduced and proven to exist on the basis of argument... it really is true, it's the same reason we accept the axiom of casuality (that A causes B) it's just assumed true because it works even if we can't prove it without being circular, it's the same for Muslims. They assume God exists (I know there are many philosophers such as Avicenna but it doesn't matter because most Muslims don't believe because Aviecenna put forward an argument in defence of it).
0
reply
PicardianSocialist
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#13
(Original post by Georgie_M)
Haha well you are most definitely talking about something completely different to what I thought.

What you are suggesting is people academically studying fields in order to present an informed argument. To be honest I find this idea less interesting because of course if you studied the academic material you could present it with ease. I don't really understand how you would not be able to do that?

I thought you meant in a more philosophical sense of overcoming your instincts and own perspective. But physically of course you can learn material and present it even if you disagree with the findings.
Unfortunately, even those in academia tend to be unable to clearly articulate the views of their political opponents. I think it's difficult for anyone to sit down and really try to understand views of their opponents, and then manage to convince someone equally knowledgeable that you accept those views.
0
reply
PicardianSocialist
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#14
(Original post by mud man 666)
All of these have been under the assumption that God can be deduced and proven to exist on the basis of argument... it really is true, it's the same reason we accept the axiom of casuality (that A causes B) it's just assumed true because it works even if we can't prove it without being circular, it's the same for Muslims. They assume God exists (I know there are many philosophers such as Avicenna but it doesn't matter because most Muslims don't believe because Aviecenna put forward an argument in defence of it).
But the challenge of ideological Turing test is to offer a convincing argument in favour of a view you disagree with, i.e., to write as if you are familiar with and agree with Avicenna's arguments.
0
reply
Georgie_M
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#15
Report 5 years ago
#15
(Original post by PicardianSocialist)
Unfortunately, even those in academia tend to be unable to clearly articulate the views of their political opponents. I think it's difficult for anyone to sit down and really try to understand views of their opponents, and then manage to convince someone equally knowledgeable that you accept those views.
Hmm I guess you are right actually. When I think about it most of my work has done much better when I truly believed in what I was writing, that passion comes across and is probably hard to fake. Also I once wrote on some theories I disagreed with and it was picked up straight away by my lecturer.
0
reply
mud man 666
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#16
Report 5 years ago
#16
(Original post by PicardianSocialist)
Unfortunately, even those in academia tend to be unable to clearly articulate the views of their political opponents. I think it's difficult for anyone to sit down and really try to understand views of their opponents, and then manage to convince someone equally knowledgeable that you accept those views.
I support UKIP because I want Britain to be about Britain, I want a significant reduction and tariffs on immigration as I feel that too many people are coming into the country which is putting strain on our public services. I'm also concerned about membership in the EU because of Eastern Europeans, these countries haven't really recovered from communism and still have significantly high levels of poverty and criminals, we do not want these people on our streets, open-door policy to 26 million Eastern Europeans in Bulgaria and Romania is not good policy. I also oppose membership in the EU because it costs 53m a day and makes it more difficult to deport said criminals (under the Human Rights Act). I also support the more libertarian and social policies of UKIP, I feel, as a former tory that the conservative party has become a party of Thatcherites and has alienated the more traditional voters such as myself, who have strong family values and don't support gay marriage. We are tired of being told what to do by the establishment, for too long Lib/Lab/Con and their cultural marxist ilk have been responsible for widespread social engineering that has destroyed this great nation. Vote UKIP.

Spoiler:
Show
how did i do?
1
reply
RumpeIstiltskin
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#17
Report 5 years ago
#17
(Original post by mud man 666)
I support UKIP because I want Britain to be about Britain, I want a significant reduction and tariffs on immigration as I feel that too many people are coming into the country which is putting strain on our public services. I'm also concerned about membership in the EU because of Eastern Europeans, these countries haven't really recovered from communism and still have significantly high levels of poverty and criminals, we do not want these people on our streets, open-door policy to 26 million Eastern Europeans in Bulgaria and Romania is not good policy. I also oppose membership in the EU because it costs 53m a day and makes it more difficult to deport said criminals (under the Human Rights Act). I also support the more libertarian and social policies of UKIP, I feel, as a former tory that the conservative party has become a party of Thatcherites and has alienated the more traditional voters such as myself, who have strong family values and don't support gay marriage. We are tired of being told what to do by the establishment, for too long Lib/Lab/Con and their cultural marxist ilk have been responsible for widespread social engineering that has destroyed this great nation. Vote UKIP.

Spoiler:
Show
how did i do?
HRA has nothing to do with the EU
0
reply
bananaminion
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#18
Report 5 years ago
#18
(Original post by RumpeIstiltskin)
HRA has nothing to do with the EU
I think you missed the point...
0
reply
RumpeIstiltskin
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#19
Report 5 years ago
#19
(Original post by bananaminion)
I think you missed the point...
What point would that be? Its an important point that a lot of people who are against the EU know barely anything about it.
0
reply
ClickItBack
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#20
Report 5 years ago
#20
(Original post by PicardianSocialist)
I've been thinking a lot recently about the idea of an ideological Turing test. For those who don't know, a Turing test is a way of testing an AI to see if it answer questions in a way indistinguishable from a human. In an ideological test an individual attempts to articulate a view he disagrees with. For instance, a die-hard Thatcherite might write an essay outlining the reasons why people should vote for the labour party.

While I definitely couldn't pass an ideological Turing test on every topic, it's definitely something I aspire to. I feel that its a mark of intellectual integrity to be able to properly articulate the argument of one's opponent.

I'm bringing this up because I get a definite sense that majority of TSR would fail an ideological Turing test on most issues, and are unfortunately fairly representative of society as a whole in this regard.

What about you? Do you feel you could pass an ideological Turing test? Regardless is it something to see as desirable?
I was actually just about to make a thread along similar lines, asking people how open-minded they are when it comes to TSR debates.

Personally, I try quite hard to approach arguments objectively and not from an ideological standpoint. Far too frequently people (both on TSR and in real life) equate an attack on their opinion with an attack on themselves; they find it hard to shift a position even when it is demonstrated to be incorrect or tenuous out of some (rather immature) desire to 'save face'. I find that kind of attitude ridiculous. If someone is able to point out a logical inconsistency or a factual inaccuracy in my argument, I change my opinion, something I think the vast majority of people are very unwilling to do.

As for the specific question you pose, I'm fairly certain I could pass the ideological Turing test if the jury was TSR, but that doesn't mean much. There are many topics which I do not know enough about to form an articulate opinion if I were to judge myself. To be fair though, to really do so on some of these topics requires years of dedicated study - so although flexibility of opinion and non-dogmatism is important, I would say that being able to pass an ideological Turing test for all standpoints of various problems isn't possible, nor desirable.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Which party will you be voting for in the General Election?

Conservatives (148)
19.15%
Labour (328)
42.43%
Liberal Democrats (156)
20.18%
Green Party (42)
5.43%
Brexit Party (21)
2.72%
Independent Group for Change (Change UK) (3)
0.39%
SNP (9)
1.16%
Plaid Cymru (6)
0.78%
Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) (1)
0.13%
Sinn Fein (1)
0.13%
SDLP (0)
0%
Ulster Unionist (1)
0.13%
UKIP (7)
0.91%
Other (8)
1.03%
None (42)
5.43%

Watched Threads

View All