David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Minds and Machines 19 (2):237-254 (2009)
Turing’s Imitation Game is often viewed as a test for theorised machines that could ‘think’ and/or demonstrate ‘intelligence’. However, contrary to Turing’s apparent intent, it can be shown that Turing’s Test is essentially a test for humans only. Such a test does not provide for theorised artificial intellects with human-like, but not human-exact, intellectual capabilities. As an attempt to bypass this limitation, I explore the notion of shifting the goal posts of the Turing Test, and related tests such as the Total Turing Test, away from the exact imitation of human capabilities, and towards communication with humans instead. While the continued philosophical relevance of such tests is open to debate, the outcome is a different class of tests which are, unlike the Turing Test, immune to failure by means of sub-cognitive questioning techniques. I suggest that attempting to instantiate such tests could potentially be more scientifically and pragmatically relevant to some Artificial Intelligence researchers, than instantiating a Turing Test, due to the focus on producing a variety of goal directed outcomes through communicative methods, as opposed to the Turing Test’s emphasis on ‘fooling’ an Examiner.
|Keywords||Communication Imitation Game Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence Turing Test|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Robert French (2000). The Turing Test: The First Fifty Years. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4 (3):115-121.
Robert M. French (1990). Subcognition and the Limits of the Turing Test. Mind 99 (393):53-66.
Stevan Harnad (2001). Minds, Machines and Turing: The Indistinguishability of Indistinguishables. Philosophical Explorations.
George Lakoff (1980/2003). Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press.
Stuart M. Shieber (1994). Lessons From a Restricted Turing Test. Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery 37:70-82.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Paul Schweizer (1998). The Truly Total Turing Test. Minds and Machines 8 (2):263-272.
Gualtiero Piccinini (2000). Turing's Rules for the Imitation Game. Minds and Machines 10 (4):573-582.
Huma Shah & Kevin Warwick (2010). Testing Turing's Parallel-Paired Imitation Game. Kybernetes 39 (3).
Dale Jacquette (1993). Who's Afraid of the Turing Test? Behavior and Philosophy 20 (21):63-74.
Adam Drozdek (1998). Human Intelligence and Turing Test. AI and Society 12 (4):315-321.
Larry Hauser (2001). Look Who's Moving the Goal Posts Now. Minds and Machines 11 (1):41-51.
Y. Sato & T. Ikegami (2004). Undecidability in the Imitation Game. Minds and Machines 14 (2):133-43.
Saul Traiger (2000). Making the Right Identification in the Turing Test. Minds and Machines 10 (4):561-572.
James H. Moor (2001). The Status and Future of the Turing Test. Minds and Machines 11 (1):77-93.
Susan G. Sterrett (2000). Turing's Two Tests for Intelligence. Minds and Machines 10 (4):541-559.
Added to index2009-06-01
Total downloads35 ( #50,328 of 1,102,846 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #120,475 of 1,102,846 )
How can I increase my downloads?