#REDIRECT Turing test
I think this bit is confusing: "The test for intelligence changes the question into whether the party answering the questions is a computer or a human." I had to read it several times to understand first that "the question" is meant to refer not to one question being asked of the computer but to a series of questions, and that they are now used to determine if the answerer is computer or human (instead of being used to determine gender). Is that what you meant or have I just misunderstood in a new way? Also, how does this test distinguish true intelligence from recitation of part of a large list of predetermined answers? I can have someone read Magic 8-ball answers back and they sound human enough for awhile. I think the test itself could use further description. :-) Sorry if this has been discussed elsewhere already. --user:Koyaanis Qatsi ---- Much better, Axel, thanks! --user:Koyaanis Qatsi ---- The article describes and criticizes one interpretation of the Turing test. But that interpretation differs from what Turing actually said. The original paper by Turing didn't claim that this test is either ''necessary'' or ''sufficient'' for something to be "truly" intelligent. He didn't even consider what consitutes "true" intelligence to be an interesting question. What he actually claimed was: * Someday, machines will be able to pass the Turing test * Someday after that, most people will think of such machines as "intelligent". This is a prediction about human sociology and linguistics. It doesn't address whether the machines are "really" intelligent (whatever that means). It doesn't address whether people ''ought'' to consider those machines intelligent. That first point is debatable. If the first prediction happens, then the second prediction may very well happen. Other interesting aspects of his paper include: * His test required the human to pretend to be the other gender * He defined "pass" as having a 5-minute conversation fooling a certain percentage of the population * He predicted both a date when this would be achieved, and the amount of memory required. The date was wrong, and the memory requirement now seems absurdly small. * He predicted that the best way to achieve this would be through machine learning. In the current AI community, both the symbolic and subsymbolic communities tend to agree that machine learning will be a very important part of large AI systems. It might be useful to include some or all of this info in the article. --user:LC ----- You sound knowledgeable enough to do it. :-) I certainly am not. --user:Koyaanis Qatsi ---- Here is a quote from Turing's paper that might be of interest. It might even be worth quoting in the article: -user:LC :It will simplify matters for the reader if I explain first my own beliefs in the matter. Consider first the more accurate form of the question. I believe that in about fifty years' time it will be possible, to programme computers, with a storage capacity of about 109, to make them play the imitation game so well that an average interrogator will not have more than 70 per cent chance of making the right identification after five minutes of questioning. The original question, "Can machines think?" I believe to be too meaningless to deserve discussion. Nevertheless I believe that at the end of the century the use of words and general educated opinion will have altered so much that one will be able to speak of machines thinking without expecting to be contradicted. ---- That's much better. Thanks. I did change half of one sentence to clarify: AI researchers generally agree machine learning is important. They don't all agree that a machine can be built to pass the Turing test. -user:LC ---- I don't have the benefit of the text in front of me, but I believe that the lack of strength in Turing's claim can be partially explained by the beginning of the paper. Turing believes that society would reject ''any'' notion of the thinking machine, therefore proposes the test as a less emotional goal. People are still too hung up on the apparent biological components of cognition to attribute the possibility of thought to anything other than wetware. That said, I think I'll work on a :Chinese Room writeup. ''hello again kq''--User:Eventi ---- Actually, he starts the article by explaining that the question "can machines think?" is meaningless. To mean something, you'd first have to define "think". There is no accepted definition, so you'd have to take a Gallup poll, which he says is absurd. Therefore, he creates a well-defined question instead: Can a machine fool 30% of the population in a 5-minute session of the immitation game?. That's a meaningful question. The only other comment he makes on "can a machine think" is this: :The original question, "Can machines think?" I believe to be too meaningless to deserve discussion. Nevertheless I believe that at the end of the century the use of words and general educated opinion will have altered so much that one will be able to speak of machines thinking without expecting to be contradicted. Turing, like many modern computer scientists, would have agreed with Dijkstra's famous quote: "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim." Obviously, Searle would disagree, so I think it could be useful for you to write up the Chinese Room. -user:LC ---- I have to disagree that Turing would have agreed with Dijkstra's quote. After all, he did begin the paper with: ''I propose to consider the question, "Can machines think?"'' Since defining "think" is so hairy, he proposes another question to remove that obsticle. Even in your quote above, the implication is that humans are just not ready to accept the idea of a machine thinking. To say that the original question is meaningless is to say that thought is meaningless. And it clearly isn't, though difficult to define. We know that we think, and can therefore to a lesser degree know that other people think. To an even lesser degree, we know that pigs, dolphins and dogs think. The degree of similarity between humans and machines is so great, that it's difficult (with our sense of the word) to attribute thought to a machine. Another quote (from the beginning of section 6) :We may now consider the ground to have been cleared and we are ready to proceed to the debate on our question, "Can machines think?" and the variant of it quoted at the end of the last section. We cannot altogether abandon the original form of the problem, for opinions will differ as to the appropriateness of the substitution and we must at least listen to what has to be said in this connexion. I do agree that Turing made no claim about what it means if a machine were to pass the Turing Test, but the implications are clear enough. ::[Deleted text moved to talk:Chinese_Room ] ---- Getting back to the 30% comment – that number is subject to manipulation. One must assume Turing would have agreed to use random distributions of individuals so that there is variability in human experience, education, :IQ, etc. After all, ELIZA fooled :Joseph Weizenbaum's secretary – and other nontechnical staff. See [http://www.alicebot.org/articles/wallace/eliza.html]. ''<>< User:Tim Chambers'' ELIZA brings up a topic related to the Turing Test – :chatterbots such as http://www.alicebot.org/. ''<>< User:Tim Chambers'' Good point. Also, whoever writes up the :Loebner prize page ought to point out that so far, all the contestants have been ELIZA-type programs. To my knowledge, no one working on serious natural language recognition has felt ready to enter yet. -user:LC ---- Humans: Gods attempt to pass the Turng test.
The Turing test is a proposal for a test of a machine's capability to perform human-like conversation. Described by Alan Turing in the 1950 paper "Computing machinery and intelligence", it proceeds as follows: a human judge engages in a natural language conversation with two other parties, one a human and the other a machine; if the judge cannot reliably tell which is which, then the machine is said to pass the test. It is assumed that both the human and the machine try to appear human. In order to keep the test setting simple and universal (to explicitly test the linguistic capability of some machine), the conversation is usually limited to a text-only channel such as a teletype machine as Turing suggested or, more recently, Internet Relay Chat. ==History== The test was inspired by a party game known as the "Imitation Game", in which a man and a woman go into separate rooms, and guests try to tell them apart by writing a series of questions and reading the typewritten answers sent back. In this game, both the man and the woman aim to convince the guests that they are the woman. Turing proposed a test employing the imitation game as follows: "We now ask the question, 'What will happen when a machine takes the part of A in this game?' Will the interrogator decide wrongly as often when the game is played like this as he does when the game is played between a man and a woman? These questions replace our original, 'Can machines think?' " (Turing 1950) Later in the paper he suggested an "equivalent" alternate formulation involving a judge conversing only with a computer and a man . Turing originally proposed the test in order to replace the emotionally charged and (for him) meaningless question "Can machines think?" with a more well-defined one. The advantage of the new question, he said, was that it "drew a fairly sharp line between the physical and intellectual capacities of a man." (Turing 1950) ==Objections and replies== Turing himself suggested several objections which could be made to the test. Below are some of the objections and replies from the article in which Turing first proposed the test. #''Theological Objection'': This states that thinking is a function of man's immortal soul and therefore a machine could not think. Turing replies by saying that he sees no reason why it would not be possible for God to grant a computer a soul if he so wished. #''Mathematical Objections'': This objection uses mathematical theorems, such as Gdel's incompleteness theorem, to show that there are limits to what questions a computer system based on logic can answer. Turing suggests that humans are too often wrong themselves and pleased at the fallibility of a machine. #''Argument From Consciousness'': This argument, suggested by Professor Jefferson Lister states, "not until a machine can write a sonnet or compose a concerto because of thoughts and emotions felt, and not by the chance fall of symbols, could we agree that machine equals brain". Turing replies by saying that we have no way of knowing that any individual other than ourselves experiences emotions, and that therefore we should accept the test. #''Lady Lovelace Objection'': One of the most famous objections, it states that computers are incapable of originality. Turing replies that computers could still surprise humans, in particular where the consequences of different facts are not immediately recognizable. #''Informality of Behaviour'': This argument states that any system governed by laws will be predictable and therefore not truly intelligent. Turing replies by stating that this is confusing laws of behaviour with general rules of conduct. #''Extra-sensory perception'': Turing seems to suggest that there is evidence for extra-sensory perception. However he feels that conditions could be created in which this would not affect the test and so may be disregarded. ==Discussion of relevance== There has been some controversy over which of the alternate formulations of the test Turing intended. (Moor, 2003) The term "Turing Test" is usually taken to indicate a test in which a human judge converses with a human and a computer without knowing which is which. It has been argued that the Turing test so defined can not serve as a valid definition of machine intelligence (trait) or "machine thinking" for at least three reasons: # A machine passing the Turing test may be able to ''simulate human conversational behavior'', but this may be much weaker than true intelligence. The machine might just follow some cleverly devised rules. A common rebuttal in the AI community has been to ask, "How do we know humans don't just follow some cleverly devised rules?" Two famous examples of this line of argument against the Turing test are John Searle's Chinese room argument and Ned Block's Blockhead argument. # A machine may very well be intelligent without being able to chat like a human. # Many humans that we'd probably want to consider intelligent might fail this test (''e.g.,'' the young or the illiterate). On the other hand, the intelligence of fellow humans is almost always tested exclusively based on their utterances. Another potential problem, related to the first objection above, is that even if the Turing test is a good operational definition of intelligence, it may not indicate that the machine has consciousness, or that it has intentionality. Perhaps intelligence and consciousness, for example, are such that neither one necessarily implies the other. In that case, the Turing test might fail to capture one of the key differences between intelligent machines and intelligent people. Of course, machines passing the test would most likely vehemently disagree. In the words of science popularizer Larry Gonick, "I personally disagree with this criterion, on the grounds that a simulation is not the real thing." These criticisms are directed to the Turing Test so defined, but other interpretations of Turing's "new question" have been disccussed. Sterrett (2000) argues that two distinct tests can be extracted from Turing's 1950 paper, and that, pace Turing's remark, they are not equivalent. The test that employs the party game and compares frequencies of success in the game is referred to as the "Original Imitation Game Test" whereas the test consisting of a human judge conversing with a human and a machine is referred to as the "Standard Turing Test". Sterrett agrees that the Standard Turing Test (STT) has the problems its critics cite, but argues that, in contrast, the Original Imitation Game Test (OIG Test) so defined is immune to many of them, due to a crucial difference: the OIG Test, unlike the STT, does not make similarity to a human performance the criterion of the test, even though it employs a human performance in setting a criterion for machine intelligence. A man can fail the OIG Test, but it is argued that this is a virtue of a test of intelligence if failure indicates a lack of resourcefulness. It is argued that the OIG Test requires the resourcefulness associated with intelligence and not merely "simulation of human conversational behavior." The general structure of the OIG Test could even be used with nonverbal versions of imitation games. (Sterrett 2000) Still other writers (Genova (1994), Hayes and Ford (1995), Heil (1998), Dreyfus (1979)) have interpreted Turing to be proposing that the imitation game itself is the test, without specifying how to take into account Turing's statement that the test he proposed using the party version of the imitation game is based upon a criterion of comparative frequency of success in that imitation game, rather than a capacity to succeed at one round of the game. == Predictions and tests == Turing predicted that machines would eventually be able to pass the test. In fact, he estimated that by the year 2000, machines with 109 bit (about 119MB) of memory would be able to fool 30% of human judges during a 5-minute test. He also predicted that people would then no longer consider the phrase "thinking machine" contradictory. He further predicted that machine learning would be an important part of building powerful machines, a claim which is considered to be plausible by contemporary researchers in Artificial intelligence. By extrapolating an Technological singularity#Kurzweil's_Law of_Accelerating_Returns of technology over several decades, Futurist Ray Kurzweil predicted that Turing-capable computers would be manufactured around the year 2020, roughly speaking. See the Moore's Law article and the references therein for discussions of the plausibility of this argument. As of 2005, no computer has passed the Turing test as such. Simple conversational programs such as ELIZA have fooled people into believing they are talking to another human being, such as in an informal experiment termed AOLiza. However, such "successes" are not the same as a Turing Test. Most obviously, the human party in the conversation has no reason to suspect they are talking to anything other than a human, whereas in a real Turing test the questioner is actively trying to determine the nature of the entity they are chatting with. Documented cases are usually in environments such as Internet Relay Chat where conversation is sometimes stilted and meaningless, and in which no understanding of a conversation is necessary, are common. Additionally, many internet relay chat participants use English as a second or third language, thus making it even more likely that they would assume that an unintelligent comment by the conversational program is simply something they have misunderstood, and are also probably unfamiliar with the technology of "chat bots" and don't recognize the very non-human errors they make. See ELIZA effect. The Loebner prize is an annual competition to determine the best Turing test competitors. Although they award an annual prize for the computer system that, in the judges' opinions, demonstrates the "most human" conversational behaviour (with A.L.I.C.E. being a recent winner multiple times, and learning AI Jabberwacky in second), they have an additional prize for a system that in their opinion passes a Turing test. This second prize has not yet been awarded. There is an ongoing $10,000 bet at the Long Now between Mitch Kapor and Ray Kurzweil about the question whether a computer will pass a Turing Test by the year 2029. The bet specifies the Turing Test in some detail. ==Terminology== In Turing's paper, the term "Imitation Game" is used for his proposed test as well as the party game for men and women. The name "Turing test" may have been invented, and was certainly publicized, by Arthur C. Clarke in the science fiction novel ''2001: A Space Odyssey'' (1968), where it is applied to the computer HAL 9000. ==References== * Alan Turing, "Computing machinery and intelligence". ''Mind'', vol. LIX, no. 236, October 1950, pp. 433-460. Online versions: [http://cogprints.soton.ac.uk/documents/disk0/00/00/04/99/], [http://www.loebner.net/Prizef/TuringArticle.html] * B. Jack Copeland, ed., ''The Essential Turing: The ideas that gave birth to the computer age'' (2004). ISBN 0198250800 * H. L. Dreyfus. What Computers Can't Do, Revised Edition, New York: Harper Colophon Books. (1979) ISBN 0060906138 * J. Genova. 'Turing's Sexual Guessing Game', Social Epistemology, 8(4): 313-326. (1994) ISSN 0269-1728 * Larry Gonick, ''The Cartoon Guide to the Computer'' (1983, originally ''The Cartoon Guide to Computer Science''). ISBN 0062730975. * Patrick Hayes and Kenneth Ford. 'Turing Test Considered Harmful', Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI95-1), Montreal, Quebec, Canada. pp. 972- 997. (1995) * John Heil. Philosophy of Mind: A Contemporary Introduction, London and New York: Routledge. (1998) ISBN 0415130603 * Ray Kurzweil, ''The Age of Intelligent Machines'' (1990). ISBN 0262111267. * James Moor, ed., "The Turing Test: The Elusive Standard of Artificial Intelligence" (2003). ISBN 1402012055 * Roger Penrose, ''The Emperor's New Mind'' (1990). ISBN 0140145346. * S. G. Sterrett, "Turing's Two Test of Intelligence" Minds and Machines v.10 n.4 (2000) ISSN 0924-6495 (reprinted in The Turing Test: The Elusive Standard of Artificial Intelligence edited by James H. Moor,Kluwer Academic 2003) ISBN 1402012055 * S. G. Sterrett "Nested Algorithms and the 'Original Imitation Game Test'," Minds and Machines (2002). ISSN 0924-6495 ==See also== * Artificial intelligence * Captcha, Chatterbot * Chinese Room * Blockhead * Loebner prize * Mark V Shaney (computer program) * Reverse Turing test ==External links== * [http://plato.stanford.edu Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy] entry on [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-test the Turing test], by G. Oppy and [http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~dld D. Dowe]. * [http://cogsci.ucsd.edu/~asaygin/tt/ttest.html The Turing Test Page] lists recent articles, links, and other info on the test. * [http://crl.ucsd.edu/~saygin/papers/MMTT.pdf Turing Test: 50 Years Later] reviews a half-century of work on the Turing Test, from the vantage point of 2000. * [http://www.longbets.org/1 Bet between Kapor and Kurzweil], including detailed justifications of their respective positions. * [http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/users/blayw/tt.html Why The Turing Test is AI's Biggest Blind Alley] by Blay Witby * [http://www.twinkiesproject.com/turing.html A humorous look] at proving the non-intelligence of a Twinkie * [http://www.turinghub.com TuringHub.com] Take the Turing Test, live, online * [http://www.jabberwacky.com Jabberwacky.com] An AI chatterbot that learns from and imitates humans * New York Times essays on machine intelligence [http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~cfs/472_html/Intro/NYT_Intro/History/MachineIntelligence2.html part 1] and [http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~cfs/472_html/Intro/NYT_Intro/History/MachineIntelligence2.html part 2] Artificial intelligence Alan Turing
We already have Turing Test, so the two articles should be merged. Should it be capitalized? user:AxelBoldt ---- Someone wrote: :So far, no computer has passed the Turing test as such. But I read somewhere that a museum of computers in Boston conducts an annual Turing test competition, and that they've managed to fool "some of the people some of the time". Anyone know more about this? --User:Ed Poor I don't know many useful details here. I do know that my psych professor claims the Turing test ''has been'' passed, but is not passable today, because people have become more discerning in their judgements. But maybe this was taking "Turing test" in a more liberal sense, e.g. taking being fooled by ELIZA to mean that ELIZA passed the Turing test. --User:Ryguasu ---- On the other hand, the intelligence of fellow humans is almost always tested exclusively based on their utterances. :Anyone else think this is problematic? It seems there are many not-so-verbal ways to "test" intelligence, e.g. does X talk to walls?, can X walk without falling down?, can X pick a lock?, can X learn to play an instrument?, can X create a compelling sketch of a scene?, etc.. --User:Ryguasu ::Think the difference is between 'test' and '"test"'. I.e. when intelligence is formally tested, the scores are usually based on verbal answers or even multiple-choice ones; but when intelligence is informally assessed by casual observers, they use all kinds of clues. ::-Daniel Cristofani. ---- I just modified the "History" section slightly. Pretending to be the other gender was a feature of the Imitation Game, not of the Turing Test itself, and Turing's original paper only mentions the five-minute time limit when talking about how often computers might pass the Turing Test in the year 2000. User:Ekaterin ----
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Turing_Test:
Turing_Test
Turing_Test
Turing_test
Turing_test
Turing Test
#REDIRECT Turing test
Turing Test
I think this bit is confusing: "The test for intelligence changes the question into whether the party answering the questions is a computer or a human." I had to read it several times to understand first that "the question" is meant to refer not to one question being asked of the computer but to a series of questions, and that they are now used to determine if the answerer is computer or human (instead of being used to determine gender). Is that what you meant or have I just misunderstood in a new way? Also, how does this test distinguish true intelligence from recitation of part of a large list of predetermined answers? I can have someone read Magic 8-ball answers back and they sound human enough for awhile. I think the test itself could use further description. :-) Sorry if this has been discussed elsewhere already. --user:Koyaanis Qatsi ---- Much better, Axel, thanks! --user:Koyaanis Qatsi ---- The article describes and criticizes one interpretation of the Turing test. But that interpretation differs from what Turing actually said. The original paper by Turing didn't claim that this test is either ''necessary'' or ''sufficient'' for something to be "truly" intelligent. He didn't even consider what consitutes "true" intelligence to be an interesting question. What he actually claimed was: * Someday, machines will be able to pass the Turing test * Someday after that, most people will think of such machines as "intelligent". This is a prediction about human sociology and linguistics. It doesn't address whether the machines are "really" intelligent (whatever that means). It doesn't address whether people ''ought'' to consider those machines intelligent. That first point is debatable. If the first prediction happens, then the second prediction may very well happen. Other interesting aspects of his paper include: * His test required the human to pretend to be the other gender * He defined "pass" as having a 5-minute conversation fooling a certain percentage of the population * He predicted both a date when this would be achieved, and the amount of memory required. The date was wrong, and the memory requirement now seems absurdly small. * He predicted that the best way to achieve this would be through machine learning. In the current AI community, both the symbolic and subsymbolic communities tend to agree that machine learning will be a very important part of large AI systems. It might be useful to include some or all of this info in the article. --user:LC ----- You sound knowledgeable enough to do it. :-) I certainly am not. --user:Koyaanis Qatsi ---- Here is a quote from Turing's paper that might be of interest. It might even be worth quoting in the article: -user:LC :It will simplify matters for the reader if I explain first my own beliefs in the matter. Consider first the more accurate form of the question. I believe that in about fifty years' time it will be possible, to programme computers, with a storage capacity of about 109, to make them play the imitation game so well that an average interrogator will not have more than 70 per cent chance of making the right identification after five minutes of questioning. The original question, "Can machines think?" I believe to be too meaningless to deserve discussion. Nevertheless I believe that at the end of the century the use of words and general educated opinion will have altered so much that one will be able to speak of machines thinking without expecting to be contradicted. ---- That's much better. Thanks. I did change half of one sentence to clarify: AI researchers generally agree machine learning is important. They don't all agree that a machine can be built to pass the Turing test. -user:LC ---- I don't have the benefit of the text in front of me, but I believe that the lack of strength in Turing's claim can be partially explained by the beginning of the paper. Turing believes that society would reject ''any'' notion of the thinking machine, therefore proposes the test as a less emotional goal. People are still too hung up on the apparent biological components of cognition to attribute the possibility of thought to anything other than wetware. That said, I think I'll work on a :Chinese Room writeup. ''hello again kq''--User:Eventi ---- Actually, he starts the article by explaining that the question "can machines think?" is meaningless. To mean something, you'd first have to define "think". There is no accepted definition, so you'd have to take a Gallup poll, which he says is absurd. Therefore, he creates a well-defined question instead: Can a machine fool 30% of the population in a 5-minute session of the immitation game?. That's a meaningful question. The only other comment he makes on "can a machine think" is this: :The original question, "Can machines think?" I believe to be too meaningless to deserve discussion. Nevertheless I believe that at the end of the century the use of words and general educated opinion will have altered so much that one will be able to speak of machines thinking without expecting to be contradicted. Turing, like many modern computer scientists, would have agreed with Dijkstra's famous quote: "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim." Obviously, Searle would disagree, so I think it could be useful for you to write up the Chinese Room. -user:LC ---- I have to disagree that Turing would have agreed with Dijkstra's quote. After all, he did begin the paper with: ''I propose to consider the question, "Can machines think?"'' Since defining "think" is so hairy, he proposes another question to remove that obsticle. Even in your quote above, the implication is that humans are just not ready to accept the idea of a machine thinking. To say that the original question is meaningless is to say that thought is meaningless. And it clearly isn't, though difficult to define. We know that we think, and can therefore to a lesser degree know that other people think. To an even lesser degree, we know that pigs, dolphins and dogs think. The degree of similarity between humans and machines is so great, that it's difficult (with our sense of the word) to attribute thought to a machine. Another quote (from the beginning of section 6) :We may now consider the ground to have been cleared and we are ready to proceed to the debate on our question, "Can machines think?" and the variant of it quoted at the end of the last section. We cannot altogether abandon the original form of the problem, for opinions will differ as to the appropriateness of the substitution and we must at least listen to what has to be said in this connexion. I do agree that Turing made no claim about what it means if a machine were to pass the Turing Test, but the implications are clear enough. ::[Deleted text moved to talk:Chinese_Room ] ---- Getting back to the 30% comment – that number is subject to manipulation. One must assume Turing would have agreed to use random distributions of individuals so that there is variability in human experience, education, :IQ, etc. After all, ELIZA fooled :Joseph Weizenbaum's secretary – and other nontechnical staff. See [http://www.alicebot.org/articles/wallace/eliza.html]. ''<>< User:Tim Chambers'' ELIZA brings up a topic related to the Turing Test – :chatterbots such as http://www.alicebot.org/. ''<>< User:Tim Chambers'' Good point. Also, whoever writes up the :Loebner prize page ought to point out that so far, all the contestants have been ELIZA-type programs. To my knowledge, no one working on serious natural language recognition has felt ready to enter yet. -user:LC ---- Humans: Gods attempt to pass the Turng test.
Turing test
The Turing test is a proposal for a test of a machine's capability to perform human-like conversation. Described by Alan Turing in the 1950 paper "Computing machinery and intelligence", it proceeds as follows: a human judge engages in a natural language conversation with two other parties, one a human and the other a machine; if the judge cannot reliably tell which is which, then the machine is said to pass the test. It is assumed that both the human and the machine try to appear human. In order to keep the test setting simple and universal (to explicitly test the linguistic capability of some machine), the conversation is usually limited to a text-only channel such as a teletype machine as Turing suggested or, more recently, Internet Relay Chat. ==History== The test was inspired by a party game known as the "Imitation Game", in which a man and a woman go into separate rooms, and guests try to tell them apart by writing a series of questions and reading the typewritten answers sent back. In this game, both the man and the woman aim to convince the guests that they are the woman. Turing proposed a test employing the imitation game as follows: "We now ask the question, 'What will happen when a machine takes the part of A in this game?' Will the interrogator decide wrongly as often when the game is played like this as he does when the game is played between a man and a woman? These questions replace our original, 'Can machines think?' " (Turing 1950) Later in the paper he suggested an "equivalent" alternate formulation involving a judge conversing only with a computer and a man . Turing originally proposed the test in order to replace the emotionally charged and (for him) meaningless question "Can machines think?" with a more well-defined one. The advantage of the new question, he said, was that it "drew a fairly sharp line between the physical and intellectual capacities of a man." (Turing 1950) ==Objections and replies== Turing himself suggested several objections which could be made to the test. Below are some of the objections and replies from the article in which Turing first proposed the test. #''Theological Objection'': This states that thinking is a function of man's immortal soul and therefore a machine could not think. Turing replies by saying that he sees no reason why it would not be possible for God to grant a computer a soul if he so wished. #''Mathematical Objections'': This objection uses mathematical theorems, such as Gdel's incompleteness theorem, to show that there are limits to what questions a computer system based on logic can answer. Turing suggests that humans are too often wrong themselves and pleased at the fallibility of a machine. #''Argument From Consciousness'': This argument, suggested by Professor Jefferson Lister states, "not until a machine can write a sonnet or compose a concerto because of thoughts and emotions felt, and not by the chance fall of symbols, could we agree that machine equals brain". Turing replies by saying that we have no way of knowing that any individual other than ourselves experiences emotions, and that therefore we should accept the test. #''Lady Lovelace Objection'': One of the most famous objections, it states that computers are incapable of originality. Turing replies that computers could still surprise humans, in particular where the consequences of different facts are not immediately recognizable. #''Informality of Behaviour'': This argument states that any system governed by laws will be predictable and therefore not truly intelligent. Turing replies by stating that this is confusing laws of behaviour with general rules of conduct. #''Extra-sensory perception'': Turing seems to suggest that there is evidence for extra-sensory perception. However he feels that conditions could be created in which this would not affect the test and so may be disregarded. ==Discussion of relevance== There has been some controversy over which of the alternate formulations of the test Turing intended. (Moor, 2003) The term "Turing Test" is usually taken to indicate a test in which a human judge converses with a human and a computer without knowing which is which. It has been argued that the Turing test so defined can not serve as a valid definition of machine intelligence (trait) or "machine thinking" for at least three reasons: # A machine passing the Turing test may be able to ''simulate human conversational behavior'', but this may be much weaker than true intelligence. The machine might just follow some cleverly devised rules. A common rebuttal in the AI community has been to ask, "How do we know humans don't just follow some cleverly devised rules?" Two famous examples of this line of argument against the Turing test are John Searle's Chinese room argument and Ned Block's Blockhead argument. # A machine may very well be intelligent without being able to chat like a human. # Many humans that we'd probably want to consider intelligent might fail this test (''e.g.,'' the young or the illiterate). On the other hand, the intelligence of fellow humans is almost always tested exclusively based on their utterances. Another potential problem, related to the first objection above, is that even if the Turing test is a good operational definition of intelligence, it may not indicate that the machine has consciousness, or that it has intentionality. Perhaps intelligence and consciousness, for example, are such that neither one necessarily implies the other. In that case, the Turing test might fail to capture one of the key differences between intelligent machines and intelligent people. Of course, machines passing the test would most likely vehemently disagree. In the words of science popularizer Larry Gonick, "I personally disagree with this criterion, on the grounds that a simulation is not the real thing." These criticisms are directed to the Turing Test so defined, but other interpretations of Turing's "new question" have been disccussed. Sterrett (2000) argues that two distinct tests can be extracted from Turing's 1950 paper, and that, pace Turing's remark, they are not equivalent. The test that employs the party game and compares frequencies of success in the game is referred to as the "Original Imitation Game Test" whereas the test consisting of a human judge conversing with a human and a machine is referred to as the "Standard Turing Test". Sterrett agrees that the Standard Turing Test (STT) has the problems its critics cite, but argues that, in contrast, the Original Imitation Game Test (OIG Test) so defined is immune to many of them, due to a crucial difference: the OIG Test, unlike the STT, does not make similarity to a human performance the criterion of the test, even though it employs a human performance in setting a criterion for machine intelligence. A man can fail the OIG Test, but it is argued that this is a virtue of a test of intelligence if failure indicates a lack of resourcefulness. It is argued that the OIG Test requires the resourcefulness associated with intelligence and not merely "simulation of human conversational behavior." The general structure of the OIG Test could even be used with nonverbal versions of imitation games. (Sterrett 2000) Still other writers (Genova (1994), Hayes and Ford (1995), Heil (1998), Dreyfus (1979)) have interpreted Turing to be proposing that the imitation game itself is the test, without specifying how to take into account Turing's statement that the test he proposed using the party version of the imitation game is based upon a criterion of comparative frequency of success in that imitation game, rather than a capacity to succeed at one round of the game. == Predictions and tests == Turing predicted that machines would eventually be able to pass the test. In fact, he estimated that by the year 2000, machines with 109 bit (about 119MB) of memory would be able to fool 30% of human judges during a 5-minute test. He also predicted that people would then no longer consider the phrase "thinking machine" contradictory. He further predicted that machine learning would be an important part of building powerful machines, a claim which is considered to be plausible by contemporary researchers in Artificial intelligence. By extrapolating an Technological singularity#Kurzweil's_Law of_Accelerating_Returns of technology over several decades, Futurist Ray Kurzweil predicted that Turing-capable computers would be manufactured around the year 2020, roughly speaking. See the Moore's Law article and the references therein for discussions of the plausibility of this argument. As of 2005, no computer has passed the Turing test as such. Simple conversational programs such as ELIZA have fooled people into believing they are talking to another human being, such as in an informal experiment termed AOLiza. However, such "successes" are not the same as a Turing Test. Most obviously, the human party in the conversation has no reason to suspect they are talking to anything other than a human, whereas in a real Turing test the questioner is actively trying to determine the nature of the entity they are chatting with. Documented cases are usually in environments such as Internet Relay Chat where conversation is sometimes stilted and meaningless, and in which no understanding of a conversation is necessary, are common. Additionally, many internet relay chat participants use English as a second or third language, thus making it even more likely that they would assume that an unintelligent comment by the conversational program is simply something they have misunderstood, and are also probably unfamiliar with the technology of "chat bots" and don't recognize the very non-human errors they make. See ELIZA effect. The Loebner prize is an annual competition to determine the best Turing test competitors. Although they award an annual prize for the computer system that, in the judges' opinions, demonstrates the "most human" conversational behaviour (with A.L.I.C.E. being a recent winner multiple times, and learning AI Jabberwacky in second), they have an additional prize for a system that in their opinion passes a Turing test. This second prize has not yet been awarded. There is an ongoing $10,000 bet at the Long Now between Mitch Kapor and Ray Kurzweil about the question whether a computer will pass a Turing Test by the year 2029. The bet specifies the Turing Test in some detail. ==Terminology== In Turing's paper, the term "Imitation Game" is used for his proposed test as well as the party game for men and women. The name "Turing test" may have been invented, and was certainly publicized, by Arthur C. Clarke in the science fiction novel ''2001: A Space Odyssey'' (1968), where it is applied to the computer HAL 9000. ==References== * Alan Turing, "Computing machinery and intelligence". ''Mind'', vol. LIX, no. 236, October 1950, pp. 433-460. Online versions: [http://cogprints.soton.ac.uk/documents/disk0/00/00/04/99/], [http://www.loebner.net/Prizef/TuringArticle.html] * B. Jack Copeland, ed., ''The Essential Turing: The ideas that gave birth to the computer age'' (2004). ISBN 0198250800 * H. L. Dreyfus. What Computers Can't Do, Revised Edition, New York: Harper Colophon Books. (1979) ISBN 0060906138 * J. Genova. 'Turing's Sexual Guessing Game', Social Epistemology, 8(4): 313-326. (1994) ISSN 0269-1728 * Larry Gonick, ''The Cartoon Guide to the Computer'' (1983, originally ''The Cartoon Guide to Computer Science''). ISBN 0062730975. * Patrick Hayes and Kenneth Ford. 'Turing Test Considered Harmful', Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI95-1), Montreal, Quebec, Canada. pp. 972- 997. (1995) * John Heil. Philosophy of Mind: A Contemporary Introduction, London and New York: Routledge. (1998) ISBN 0415130603 * Ray Kurzweil, ''The Age of Intelligent Machines'' (1990). ISBN 0262111267. * James Moor, ed., "The Turing Test: The Elusive Standard of Artificial Intelligence" (2003). ISBN 1402012055 * Roger Penrose, ''The Emperor's New Mind'' (1990). ISBN 0140145346. * S. G. Sterrett, "Turing's Two Test of Intelligence" Minds and Machines v.10 n.4 (2000) ISSN 0924-6495 (reprinted in The Turing Test: The Elusive Standard of Artificial Intelligence edited by James H. Moor,Kluwer Academic 2003) ISBN 1402012055 * S. G. Sterrett "Nested Algorithms and the 'Original Imitation Game Test'," Minds and Machines (2002). ISSN 0924-6495 ==See also== * Artificial intelligence * Captcha, Chatterbot * Chinese Room * Blockhead * Loebner prize * Mark V Shaney (computer program) * Reverse Turing test ==External links== * [http://plato.stanford.edu Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy] entry on [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-test the Turing test], by G. Oppy and [http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~dld D. Dowe]. * [http://cogsci.ucsd.edu/~asaygin/tt/ttest.html The Turing Test Page] lists recent articles, links, and other info on the test. * [http://crl.ucsd.edu/~saygin/papers/MMTT.pdf Turing Test: 50 Years Later] reviews a half-century of work on the Turing Test, from the vantage point of 2000. * [http://www.longbets.org/1 Bet between Kapor and Kurzweil], including detailed justifications of their respective positions. * [http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/users/blayw/tt.html Why The Turing Test is AI's Biggest Blind Alley] by Blay Witby * [http://www.twinkiesproject.com/turing.html A humorous look] at proving the non-intelligence of a Twinkie * [http://www.turinghub.com TuringHub.com] Take the Turing Test, live, online * [http://www.jabberwacky.com Jabberwacky.com] An AI chatterbot that learns from and imitates humans * New York Times essays on machine intelligence [http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~cfs/472_html/Intro/NYT_Intro/History/MachineIntelligence2.html part 1] and [http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~cfs/472_html/Intro/NYT_Intro/History/MachineIntelligence2.html part 2] Artificial intelligence Alan Turing
Turing test
We already have Turing Test, so the two articles should be merged. Should it be capitalized? user:AxelBoldt ---- Someone wrote: :So far, no computer has passed the Turing test as such. But I read somewhere that a museum of computers in Boston conducts an annual Turing test competition, and that they've managed to fool "some of the people some of the time". Anyone know more about this? --User:Ed Poor I don't know many useful details here. I do know that my psych professor claims the Turing test ''has been'' passed, but is not passable today, because people have become more discerning in their judgements. But maybe this was taking "Turing test" in a more liberal sense, e.g. taking being fooled by ELIZA to mean that ELIZA passed the Turing test. --User:Ryguasu ---- On the other hand, the intelligence of fellow humans is almost always tested exclusively based on their utterances. :Anyone else think this is problematic? It seems there are many not-so-verbal ways to "test" intelligence, e.g. does X talk to walls?, can X walk without falling down?, can X pick a lock?, can X learn to play an instrument?, can X create a compelling sketch of a scene?, etc.. --User:Ryguasu ::Think the difference is between 'test' and '"test"'. I.e. when intelligence is formally tested, the scores are usually based on verbal answers or even multiple-choice ones; but when intelligence is informally assessed by casual observers, they use all kinds of clues. ::-Daniel Cristofani. ---- I just modified the "History" section slightly. Pretending to be the other gender was a feature of the Imitation Game, not of the Turing Test itself, and Turing's original paper only mentions the five-minute time limit when talking about how often computers might pass the Turing Test in the year 2000. User:Ekaterin ----
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
T
TA | TB | TC | TD | TE | TF | TG | TH | TI | TJ | TK | TL | TŁ | TM | TN | TO | TP | TR | TS | TU | TW | TX | TY | TZ |Words begining with Turing_Test:
Turing_Test
Turing_Test
Turing_test
Turing_test
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
