Are editors of flesh and blood necessary for meeting yet another danger with AI?

Abstract

As a writer, it is hard to defend oneself from the accusation of being a robot. Even though the argument is ad hominem it perhaps is too difficult to create a “reversed” Turing test. It is suggested in this article that editors of flesh and blood still are necessary.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Similar books and articles

The status and future of the Turing test.James H. Moor - 2001 - Minds and Machines 11 (1):77-93.
Ad Hominem.George Wrisley - 2018-05-09 - In Robert Arp, Steven Barbone & Michael Bruce (eds.), Bad Arguments. Wiley. pp. 88–93.
Ad Hominem.George Wrisley - 2018-05-09 - In Robert Arp, Steven Barbone & Michael Bruce (eds.), Bad Arguments. Wiley. pp. 77–82.
Human intelligence and Turing Test.Adam Drozdek - 1998 - AI and Society 12 (4):315-321.
The Turing Test and the Issue of Trust in AI Systems.Paweł Stacewicz & Krzysztof Sołoducha - 2024 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 69 (1):353-364.

Analytics

Added to PP
2024-03-07

Downloads
172 (#138,606)

6 months
57 (#95,600)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Johan Gamper
Subrosa KB

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references