Minds and Machines 11 (4):567-576 (2001)
Since the introduction of the imitation game by Turing in 1950 there has been much debate as to its validity in ascertaining machine intelligence. We wish herein to consider a different issue altogether: granted that a computing machine passes the Turing Test, thereby earning the label of ``Turing Chatterbox'', would it then be of any use (to us humans)? From the examination of scenarios, we conclude that when machines begin to participate in social transactions, unresolved issues of trust and responsibility may well overshadow any raw reasoning ability they possess
|Keywords||Intelligence Machine Science Speech Talking Turing, A|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Turing's Golden: How Well Turing's Work Stands Today.Justin Leiber - 2006 - Philosophical Psychology 19 (1):13-46.
Computing Machines Can't Be Intelligent (...And Turing Said So).Peter Kugel - 2002 - Minds and Machines 12 (4):563-579.
Making the Right Identification in the Turing Test.Saul Traiger - 2000 - Minds and Machines 10 (4):561-572.
Undecidability in the Imitation Game.Y. Sato & T. Ikegami - 2004 - Minds and Machines 14 (2):133-43.
From the Buzzing in Turing’s Head to Machine Intelligence Contests.Huma Shah & Kevin Warwick - 2010 - In TCIT 2010 / AISB 2010 Convention.
On Turing's Turing Test and Why the Matter Matters.Justin Leiber - 1995 - Synthese 104 (1):59-69.
What Does the Turing Test Really Mean? And How Many Human Beings (Including Turing) Could Pass?Tyler Cowen & Michelle Dawson - unknown
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads43 ( #119,259 of 2,158,385 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #355,511 of 2,158,385 )
How can I increase my downloads?