Psycoloquy 7 (39) (1996)
|Abstract||This commentary attempts to show that the inverted Turing Test (Watt 1996) could be simulated by a standard Turing test and, most importantly, claims that a very simple program with no intelligence whatsoever could be written that would pass the inverted Turing test. For this reason, the inverted Turing test in its present form must be rejected.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Bruce Edmonds (2000). The Constructability of Artificial Intelligence (as Defined by the Turing Test). Journal of Logic Language and Information 9 (4):419-424.
Selmer Bringsjord, P. Bello & David A. Ferrucci (2001). Creativity, the Turing Test, and the (Better) Lovelace Test. Minds and Machines 11 (1):3-27.
Saul Traiger (2000). Making the Right Identification in the Turing Test. Minds and Machines 10 (4):561-572.
Ayse P. Saygin, Ilyas Cicekli & Varol Akman (2000). Turing Test: 50 Years Later. Minds and Machines 10 (4):463-518.
Gerald J. Erion (2001). The Cartesian Test for Automatism. Minds and Machines 11 (1):29-39.
A. P. Saygin & I. Cicekli (2000). Turing Test: 50 Years Later. Minds and Machines 10 (4):463-518.
James H. Moor (2001). The Status and Future of the Turing Test. Minds and Machines 11 (1):77-93.
B. Jack Copeland (2000). The Turing Test. Minds and Machines 10 (4):519-539.
S. Watt (1996). Naive Psychology and the Inverted Turing Test. Psycoloquy 7 (14).
Robert M. French (2000). Peeking Behind the Screen: The Unsuspected Power of the Standard Turing Test. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 12 (3):331-340.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads41 ( #28,484 of 556,803 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #16,099 of 556,803 )
How can I increase my downloads?