An analysis of alan turings test the imitation game
Turing himself observes that these results from mathematical logic might have implications for the Turing test: There are certain things that [any digital computer] cannot do. Shane T. Player A is a man, player B is a woman and player C who plays the role of the interrogator is of either sex.
First, it could be denied that Blockhead is a logical possibility; second, it could be claimed that Blockhead would be intelligent have a mind, think. In his book, Language, Truth and LogicAyer suggested a protocol to distinguish between a conscious man and an unconscious machine: "The only ground I can have for asserting that an object which appears to be conscious is not really a conscious being, but only a dummy or a machine, is that it fails to satisfy one of the empirical tests by which the presence or absence of consciousness is determined.
Philosophical background[ edit ] The question of whether it is possible for machines to think has a long history, which is firmly entrenched in the distinction between dualist and materialist views of the mind.
Turing test online
A better reply is to ask why one should be so confident that real thought, etc. They say that an artificial agent A, designed by human H, passes the Lovelace Test just in case three conditions are jointly satisfied: 1 the artificial agent A produces output O; 2 A's outputting O is not the result of a fluke hardware error, but rather the result of processes that A can repeat; and 3 H—or someone who knows what H knows and who has H's resources—cannot explain how A produced O by appeal to A's architecture, knowledge-base and core functions. This is also known as a "Feigenbaum test" and was proposed by Edward Feigenbaum in a paper. It is, of course, not essential to the game that tele-text devices be used to prevent direct access to information about the sex or genus of participants in the game. Or so says French. If it were to solve a computational problem that is practically impossible for a human to solve, then the interrogator would know the program is not human, and the machine would fail the test. But this interpretation of The Turing Test is vulnerable to the kind of objection lodged by Bringsjord : even on a moderately long single run with relatively expert participants, it may not be all that unlikely that an unintelligent machine serendipitously succeeds in the imitation game. Just think what he might have been able to do if the authorities left him alone or allowed him to continue his work at Bletchley Park. It is an interesting question whether the test that Harnad proposes sets a more appropriate goal for AI research. Ebert test[ edit ] The Turing test inspired the Ebert test proposed in by film critic Roger Ebert which is a test whether a computer-based synthesised voice has sufficient skill in terms of intonations, inflections, timing and so forth, to make people laugh. On the basis of this historical record, we are able to claim that human beings are intelligent; and we can rely upon this claim when we attribute intelligence to individual human beings on the basis of their behavior. Clearly, a machine that is very successful in many different runs of the game that last for quite extended periods of time and that involve highly skilled participants in the other roles has a much stronger claim to intelligence than a machine that has been successful in a single, short run of the game with highly inexpert participants. What if the grand piano has wheels?
In these cases, the "interrogators" are not even aware of the possibility that they are interacting with computers. Against this proposal, it seems worth noting that there are questions to be raised about the interpretation of the third condition.
If someone thinks that real thought or intelligence, or mind, or whatever can only be located in a continuous-state machine, then the fact—if, indeed, it is a fact—that it is possible for discrete-state machines to pass the Turing Test shows only that the Turing Test is no good.
You should see this movie, and like always I welcome good discussion of movies, books and other things that do a good job highlighting the giants in the history of science and computing.
Midway through the second decade of the twenty-first century, little has changed.
However, other objections are objections to the Turing Test Claim. There are a number of main ideas to be investigated. Amongst these authors, there are many who suppose that The Turing Test is too easy. He pointed out that it overcomes most if not all standard objections levelled at the standard version.
based on 64 review