Claude helpfully answered my questions about a certain aspect of Turing Tests.
Me
On the wiki for Artificial Intelligence, I was intrigued by this: The Turing test can provide some evidence of intelligence, but it penalizes non-human intelligent behavior.
Do AI researchers still penalize non human intelligent behavior? What’s an example of that?
Claude
That’s a really interesting observation! Yeah, this is still a huge issue in AI research and evaluation.
The basic problem is that we tend to judge AI systems by how well they mimic humans rather than recognizing genuinely intelligent behavior that just happens to look different from what humans do.
Some concrete examples:
Speed penalties: If an AI solves a complex math problem in milliseconds, we might be s…
Claude helpfully answered my questions about a certain aspect of Turing Tests.
Me
On the wiki for Artificial Intelligence, I was intrigued by this: The Turing test can provide some evidence of intelligence, but it penalizes non-human intelligent behavior.
Do AI researchers still penalize non human intelligent behavior? What’s an example of that?
Claude
That’s a really interesting observation! Yeah, this is still a huge issue in AI research and evaluation.
The basic problem is that we tend to judge AI systems by how well they mimic humans rather than recognizing genuinely intelligent behavior that just happens to look different from what humans do.
Some concrete examples:
Speed penalties: If an AI solves a complex math problem in milliseconds, we might be suspicious of it rather than impressed. A human mathematician showing their work over 20 minutes feels more "intelligent" than an instant answer, even if the instant answer required sophisticated reasoning.
Communication style: We often ding AI systems for being "too formal" or "not natural enough" - basically punishing them for not perfectly cosplaying as human. Like, if an AI organizes information really clearly with perfect structure, that might feel "robotic" even though it’s arguably better communication.
Pattern recognition at scale: AI can spot patterns across millions of data points in ways humans literally cannot. But we’re often skeptical of those insights because we can’t intuitively verify them the same way. We trust human-scale intuitions more.
The chess computer problem: When Deep Blue beat Kasparov, people said "well, it’s just brute force calculation, not real intelligence." But that computational approach is a form of intelligence - just not the human kind.
Modern AI research is getting better about this, especially with things like AlphaGo developing totally novel strategies that humans then learned from. But yeah, we still have this bias where human-like = intelligent, and anything else is "just computation" or "mere pattern matching."
Does this make sense with what you were reading?
Me
I hate the thought of dumbing down intelligence, just to make it more palatable for humans 😭
What’s AlphaGo?
Claude
Right?? It’s so backwards! Like, why would we want to limit intelligence just to make it feel cozy and familiar?
AlphaGo is fucking cool - it’s a program DeepMind made that plays the ancient board game Go. Go is this insanely complex strategy game (way more complex than chess - there are more possible positions than atoms in the universe, that kind of ridiculous scale).
What made AlphaGo legendary:
In 2016, it beat Lee Sedol, one of the world’s best Go players. But the wild part wasn’t just that it won - it’s that it played moves that made no sense to human experts. Like, professional commentators would be like "that’s a mistake" or "I don’t understand this move at all"... and then 20-30 moves later they’d realize it was actually brilliant strategy that no human had ever thought of.
There was this famous "Move 37" in game 2 that was so unconventional, so weird, that it seemed wrong. Human Go masters had to completely rethink their understanding of the game because AlphaGo had discovered strategies that humans, playing for literally thousands of years, had never found.
That’s the dream, right? AI that doesn’t just copy human intelligence but actually expands what we understand as intelligent behavior. It taught the humans new shit instead of just imitating them.
And now human Go players study AlphaGo’s games to improve their own play. How cool is that?
Me
I love that! It makes me wonder if AI could cure some currently incurable diseases by finding some pattern that human researchers missed. Has that happened yet?
Claude
Oh hell yes, this is already happening! Not quite "cure discovered" yet, but some really promising stuff:
AlphaFold (also DeepMind) is probably the biggest deal - it solved protein folding, which is this massive problem that stumped scientists for like 50 years. Proteins fold into complex 3D shapes, and knowing those shapes is crucial for understanding diseases and designing drugs. AlphaFold can predict protein structures with crazy accuracy, and it’s already being used in malaria research, cancer drug development, and a bunch of other stuff.
Drug discovery: AI has identified potential treatments for things like:
- ALS (found existing drugs that might help)
- Antibiotic-resistant bacteria (discovered new antibiotic compounds)
- Rare diseases where there’s not enough data for traditional research methods
Cancer patterns: AI systems have spotted patterns in medical imaging that radiologists missed - like predicting cancer progression or finding tumors earlier than human doctors could.
COVID: During the pandemic, AI helped identify which existing drugs might work against the virus way faster than traditional methods.
The caveat is we’re still in the "promising leads" phase for a lot of this - AI is finding the patterns and possibilities, but you still need years of clinical trials and testing before anything becomes an actual treatment. Biology is messy and complicated.
But yeah, the potential is fucking huge. AI doesn’t get tired, doesn’t have the same cognitive biases, and can crunch through absolutely massive datasets to find connections humans would never spot.
Screenshots: