Minds and Machines 24 (2):143-188 (2014)

Authors
Drew McDermott
Yale University
Abstract
The claim has often been made that passing the Turing Test would not be sufficient to prove that a computer program was intelligent because a trivial program could do it, namely, the “Humongous-Table (HT) Program”, which simply looks up in a table what to say next. This claim is examined in detail. Three ground rules are argued for: (1) That the HT program must be exhaustive, and not be based on some vaguely imagined set of tricks. (2) That the HT program must not be created by some set of sentient beings enacting responses to all possible inputs. (3) That in the current state of cognitive science it must be an open possibility that a computational model of the human mind will be developed that accounts for at least its nonphenomenological properties. Given ground rule 3, the HT program could simply be an “optimized” version of some computational model of a mind, created via the automatic application of program-transformation rules [thus satisfying ground rule 2]. Therefore, whatever mental states one would be willing to impute to an ordinary computational model of the human psyche one should be willing to grant to the optimized version as well. Hence no one could dismiss out of hand the possibility that the HT program was intelligent. This conclusion is important because the Humongous-Table Program Argument is the only argument ever marshalled against the sufficiency of the Turing Test, if we exclude arguments that cognitive science is simply not possible
Keywords Artificial intelligence  Turing test  Cognitive science
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s11023-013-9333-3
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

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

The Language of Thought.Jerry A. Fodor - 1975 - Harvard University Press.
Minds, Brains, and Programs.John R. Searle - 1980 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3 (3):417-57.
Computing Machinery and Intelligence.Alan M. Turing - 1950 - Mind 59 (October):433-60.
Readings in Philosophy of Psychology.Ned Block (ed.) - 1980 - Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

View all 38 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Who's Afraid of the Turing Test?Dale Jacquette - 1993 - Behavior and Philosophy 20 (2):63-74.
The Constructability of Artificial Intelligence.Bruce Edmonds - 2000 - Journal of Logic Language and Information 9 (4):419-424.
A Simple Comment Regarding the Turing Test.Benny Shanon - 1989 - Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 19 (June):249-56.
Peeking Behind the Screen: The Unsuspected Power of the Standard Turing Test.Robert M. French - 2000 - Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 12 (3):331-340.
Making the Right Identification in the Turing Test.Saul Traiger - 2000 - Minds and Machines 10 (4):561-572.
Turing Test: 50 Years Later. [REVIEW]A. P. Saygin & I. Cicekli - 2000 - Minds and Machines 10 (4):463-518.
Turing's Two Tests for Intelligence.Susan G. Sterrett - 1999 - Minds and Machines 10 (4):541-559.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2013-07-12

Total views
905 ( #5,316 of 2,426,330 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
50 ( #15,912 of 2,426,330 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes