3 (4):9-10 (1992)
|Abstract||It is important to understand that the Turing Test (TT) is not, nor was it intended to be, a trick; how well one can fool someone is not a measure of scientific progress. The TT is an empirical criterion: It sets AI's empirical goal to be to generate human-scale performance capacity. This goal will be met when the candidate's performance is totally indistinguishable from a human's. Until then, the TT simply represents what it is that AI must endeavor eventually to accomplish scientifically.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Robert French (1996). The Inverted Turing Test: How a Mindless Program Could Pass It. Psycoloquy 7 (39).
Susan G. Sterrett (2000). Turing's Two Tests for Intelligence. Minds and Machines 10 (4):541-559.
Ayse P. Saygin, Ilyas Cicekli & Varol Akman (2000). Turing Test: 50 Years Later. Minds and Machines 10 (4):463-518.
Stevan Harnad & Itiel Dror (2006). Distributed Cognition: Cognizing, Autonomy and the Turing Test. Pragmatics and Cognition 14 (2):14.
Saul Traiger (2000). Making the Right Identification in the Turing Test. Minds and Machines 10 (4):561-572.
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.
Stevan Harnad (2000). Minds, Machines and Turing: The Indistinguishability of Indistinguishables. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 9 (4):425-445.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads29 ( #42,452 of 549,426 )
Recent downloads (6 months)13 ( #5,070 of 549,426 )
How can I increase my downloads?