This is the 7th episode of the Algocracy and Transhumanism Podcast. In this episode I talk to Brett Frischmann about his work on human-focused Turing Tests. Brett is a Professor of Law at Cardozo Law School in New York City. He writes a lot about technology and law, and is currently in the midst of co-authoring a book with Evan Selinger (my guest in Episode 4) entitled Being Human in the 21st Century (Cambridge University Press 2017). We have a long and wide-ranging conversation about what it means to be a machine; what it means to be a human; and how the current techno-social environment is changing who we are.
You can listen to the episode below or download it at this link. You can also subscribe on Stitcher and iTunes (via RSS Feed).
Show Notes
- 0:00 - 2:24 - Introduction to Brett and his work
- 2:24- 15:20 - Classic Turing Tests and their value
- 15:20 - 23:27 - Approaching the Turing Line from the other side (or the concept of a 'Reverse Turing Test')
- 23:27 - 32:40 - How environments can make machines more human-like and humans more machine-like
- 32:40 - 37:20 - Criteria for a Reverse Turing Test
- 37:20 - 44:15 - A simple example of a Reverse Turing Test based on mathematical ability
- 44:15 - 54:20 - Common sense as the basis for a Reverse Turing Test
- 54:20 - 1:08:10 - Is technology eroding our common sense?
- 1:08:10 - 1:13:00 - Rationality as the basis for a Reverse Turing Test
- 1:13:00 - 1:26:03 - The philosophy of nudging and the creation of machine-like humans
- 1:26:03 - End - Surveillance creep and the surveillance machine
Relevant Links
- Brett's paper "Human Focused Turing Tests: A Framework for Judging Nudging and the Techno-Social Engineering of Human Beings"
- My interview with Evan Selinger (Brett's co-author)
- "Reverse Turing Tests: Are humans becoming more machine-like?" - short post explaining the idea
- Alan Turing - 'On Computing Machinery and Intelligence'
- John Danaher - 'The Ethics of Algorithmic Outsourcing: An Analysis'
Informational Processual Monism (IPM) explores the idea that what we call “entities” may be better understood as stabilized informational processes rather than fundamentally static objects. Its Dynamic Signature — Lack → Coupling → Integration → Persistence — describes a recurring pattern where asymmetry, incompleteness or tension generates interaction; interaction forms dependencies; dependencies organize into higher-order structures; and sufficiently coherent structures become persistent across time and perturbation. Persistence is therefore treated not as a starting property, but as an emergent outcome of dynamic organization.
ReplyDeleteThe framework is broader than AI ethics or consciousness discussions. Potential applications include adaptive AI systems, NPCs, virtual pets, persistent digital identities, emergent game worlds, human–AI interaction, cultural evolution, social dynamics, architecture, urban systems, cognition and subjective identity. In games it could support evolving narratives and adaptive ecosystems; in virtual agents it may enable long-term behavioral coherence; in culture it may help explain how narratives and collective identities spread and stabilize; in cognition it suggests selfhood as an ongoing process rather than a fixed essence.
More generally, IPM attempts to provide a shared process framework connecting information theory, complex systems, emergence, cognition and design through a central question: how do stable structures and identities arise from continuous change?