David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Minds and Machines 11 (1):53-76 (2001)
This paper argues that the Turing test is based on a fixed and de-contextualized view of communicative competence. According to this view, a machine that passes the test will be able to communicate effectively in a variety of other situations. But the de-contextualized view ignores the relationship between language and social context, or, to put it another way, the extent to which speakers respond dynamically to variations in discourse function, formality level, social distance/solidarity among participants, and participants' relative degrees of power and status (Holmes, 1992). In the case of the Loebner Contest, a present day version of the Turing test, the social context of interaction can be interpreted in conflicting ways. For example, Loebner discourse is defined 1) as a friendly, casual conversation between two strangers of equal power, and 2) as a one-way transaction in which judges control the conversational floor in an attempt to expose contestants that are not human. This conflict in discourse function is irrelevant so long as the goal of the contest is to ensure that only thinking, human entities pass the test. But if the function of Loebner discourse is to encourage the production of software that can pass for human on the level of conversational ability, then the contest designers need to resolve this ambiguity in discourse function, and thus also come to terms with the kind of competence they are trying to measure.
|Keywords||Artificial Intelligence Conversation Discourse Science Turing Test Loebner, H|
|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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Robert French (1996). The Inverted Turing Test: How a Mindless Program Could Pass It. Psycoloquy 7 (39).
Luciano Floridi, Mariarosaria Taddeo & Matteo Turilli (2008). Turing’s Imitation Game: Still an Impossible Challenge for All Machines and Some Judges. Minds and Machines 19 (1):145-150.
A. P. Saygin & I. Cicekli (2000). Turing Test: 50 Years Later. [REVIEW] Minds and Machines 10 (4):463-518.
B. Jack Copeland (2000). The Turing Test. Minds and Machines 10 (4):519-539.
Saul Traiger (2000). Making the Right Identification in the Turing Test. Minds and Machines 10 (4):561-572.
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.
Ayse P. Saygin, Ilyas Cicekli & Varol Akman (2000). Turing Test: 50 Years Later. [REVIEW] Minds and Machines 10 (4):463-518.
Gerald J. Erion (2001). The Cartesian Test for Automatism. Minds and Machines 11 (1):29-39.
Stuart M. Shieber (ed.) (2004). The Turing Test: Verbal Behavior As the Hallmark of Intelligence. MIT Press.
James H. Moor (2001). The Status and Future of the Turing Test. Minds and Machines 11 (1):77-93.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads28 ( #70,253 of 1,413,447 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #94,648 of 1,413,447 )
How can I increase my downloads?