Talk:Turing test
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. |
We already have Turing Test, so the two articles should be merged. Should it be capitalized? 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? --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. --Ryguasu
- I think that it has to do with greater discernment and exposure to software and to concepts of artificial intelligence since the Turing test requires a human judge. Ember 2199 06:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
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..
--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.
Ekaterin
The "Objections and replies" section seems to be a list of objections to the fact that machines could think, and not objections on whether the test actually answers that question. This is confusing and missleading. Maybe the title should be modified to reflect this fact. The following section, moreover, does seem to discuss on possible objections on the test. --NavarroJ 12:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- I commented on this below, to take an example: "One of the most famous objections, it states that computers are incapable of originality." (italics added), but there is no explanation in the article (yet) of how the test demonstrates that humans are original, or if the test is relevant for originality. Ember 2199 06:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Heads in the sand
The new Heads in the sand note makes some claims about what Turing said that I've never seen before. I think that either we need a reference, or to take it out. Rick Norwood 12:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Since nobody has steped forward to support the claims in the "Heads in the sand" paragraph, I'm deleting it. Rick Norwood 14:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Which brings us to the paragraph on "Extra Sensory Perception". Any evidence or support for the idea that Turing believed in ESP? Rick Norwood 14:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, there is a large section on it in his paper describing the Turing test. You should probably read the paper before making too many edits! --Lawrennd 20:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. My knowledge of Turing comes from secondary sources, which is why I'm careful to post ideas here where more knowledgable people can comment. Rick Norwood 23:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia and the Turing Test
Computer Scientists, please convert the Wikipedia search box to process natural language. Thanks. - MPD 09:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Voight Kampff
does anyone have an objection to having a link to Voight-Kampff machine in the see alsos? It is the test from Blade Runner to test for replicants. WookMuff 20:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- I, for one, have no objection. Rick Norwood 21:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- I also have no objection, and I think it would be interesting to include something like a "references in pop culture" type section. If I recall correctly, didn't an episode of the Simpsons spoof Turing or allude to the test? - IstvanWolf 23:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Expansion
I'd like to suggest expanding the article into the premises of the Turing test. Does anyone know of any rigorous analyses of the premises? I also want to affirm the earlier comment that the criticisms section seems to not really discuss the fundamentals of the Turing test, which is what this article should focus on, for example how judges are chosen, the criteria for judgement, time period, format, breadth/scope of topics. Ember 2199 06:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Human Computer Interface
Turing was trying to make things easy for the machinists by proposing a "simple teletype interface". Consider other forms of interaction, such as first-person gaming. Can you tell when playing CS:Source online who is a bot and who is a human? (if yes, usually only because the humans are stupid!)
My home desktop already makes a datacentre-class machine of 2001 vintage look quite tame, yet can support a number of these bots. This year's crop of datacentre machines are a ten-fold advance.
I haven't yet seen a machine "demonstrate learning" (rather than fool someone that it is human). This is usually the diversionary tactic that is deployed to deny the machine has passed the test.
Is there a link to Asimov? Multivac was very like Google... all you need to do is ask the right question.
