Computing Machinery and Intelligence (1950)

2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Turing
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Mind ◽  
Turing Test ◽  
Correct Identification ◽  
Imitation Game ◽  
Additional Material ◽  
Computing Machinery ◽  
Restricted Form ◽  
Wrong Identification ◽  
Asking Questions ◽  
Philosophy Journal

Together with ‘On Computable Numbers’, ‘Computing Machinery and Intelligence’ forms Turing’s best-known work. This elegant and sometimes amusing essay was originally published in 1950 in the leading philosophy journal Mind. Turing’s friend Robin Gandy (like Turing a mathematical logician) said that ‘Computing Machinery and Intelligence’. . . was intended not so much as a penetrating contribution to philosophy but as propaganda. Turing thought the time had come for philosophers and mathematicians and scientists to take seriously the fact that computers were not merely calculating engines but were capable of behaviour which must be accounted as intelligent; he sought to persuade people that this was so. He wrote this paper—unlike his mathematical papers—quickly and with enjoyment. I can remember him reading aloud to me some of the passages— always with a smile, sometimes with a giggle. The quality and originality of ‘Computing Machinery and Intelligence’ have earned it a place among the classics of philosophy of mind. ‘Computing Machinery and Intelligence’ contains Turing’s principal exposition of the famous ‘imitation game’ or Turing test. The test first appeared, in a restricted form, in the closing paragraphs of ‘Intelligent Machinery’ (Chapter 10). Chapters 13 and 14, dating from 1951 and 1952 respectively, contain further discussion and amplification; unpublished until 1999, this important additional material throws new light on how the Turing test is to be understood. The imitation game involves three participants: a computer, a human interrogator, and a human ‘foil’. The interrogator attempts to determine, by asking questions of the other two participants, which of them is the computer. All communication is via keyboard and screen, or an equivalent arrangement (Turing suggested a teleprinter link). The interrogator may ask questions as penetrating and wide-ranging as he or she likes, and the computer is permitted to do everything possible to force a wrong identification. (So the computer might answer ‘No’ in response to ‘Are you a computer?’ and might follow a request to multiply one large number by another with a long pause and a plausibly incorrect answer.) The foil must help the interrogator to make a correct identification.

Chatterbox Challenge as a Test-Bed for Synthetic Emotions

2010 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 12-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jordi Vallverdú ◽  
Huma Shah ◽  
David Casacuberta
Keyword(s):  
Thought Experiment ◽  
Turing Test ◽  
Test Bed ◽  
Imitation Game ◽  
Industry Funding ◽  
Language Understanding ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Computing Machinery ◽  
Insight Into ◽  
Technology Comparison

Chatterbox Challenge is an annual web-based contest for artificial conversational systems, ACE. The 2010 instantiation was the tenth consecutive contest held between March and June in the 60th year following the publication of Alan Turing’s influential disquisition ‘computing machinery and intelligence’. Loosely based on Turing’s viva voca interrogator-hidden witness imitation game, a thought experiment to ascertain a machine’s capacity to respond satisfactorily to unrestricted questions, the contest provides a platform for technology comparison and evaluation. This paper provides an insight into emotion content in the entries since the 2005 Chatterbox Challenge. The authors find that synthetic textual systems, none of which are backed by academic or industry funding, are, on the whole and more than half a century since Weizenbaum’s natural language understanding experiment, little further than Eliza in terms of expressing emotion in dialogue. This may be a failure on the part of the academic AI community for ignoring the Turing test as an engineering challenge.

Fundamentals for a Turing Test of Virtual Reality

2016 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 2113-2117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tyler J. Renshaw ◽  
Nathan A. Sonnenfeld ◽  
Matthew D. Meyers
Keyword(s):  
Virtual Reality ◽  
Future Development ◽  
Theoretical Foundation ◽  
Turing Test ◽  
Measurement Methods ◽  
Simulation Technology ◽  
Imitation Game ◽  
Alan Turing ◽  
Type Test

Alan Turing developed the imitation game – the Turing Test – in which an interrogator is tasked with discriminating and identifying two subjects by asking a series of questions. Based on subject feedback, the challenge to the interrogator is to correctly identify those subjects. Applying this concept to the discrimination of reality from virtual reality is essential as simulation technology progresses toward a virtual era, in which we experience equal and greater presence in virtuality than reality. It is important to explore the conceptual and theoretical underpinnings of the Turing Test in order to avoid possible issues when adapting the test for virtual reality. This requires an understanding of how users judge virtual and real environments, and how these environments influence their judgement. Turing-type tests, the constructs of reality judgement and presence, and measurement methods for each are explored. Following this brief review, the researchers contribute a theoretical foundation for future development of a Turing-type test for virtual reality, based on the universal experience of the mundane.

scholarly journals Building Thinking Machines by Solving Animal Cognition Tasks

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 589-615 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Crosby
Keyword(s):  
Predictive Models ◽  
Sensory Input ◽  
Animal Cognition ◽  
Top Down ◽  
Imitation Game ◽  
Bottom Up ◽  
Computing Machinery

AbstractIn ‘Computing Machinery and Intelligence’, Turing, sceptical of the question ‘Can machines think?’, quickly replaces it with an experimentally verifiable test: the imitation game. I suggest that for such a move to be successful the test needs to be relevant, expansive, solvable by exemplars, unpredictable, and lead to actionable research. The Imitation Game is only partially successful in this regard and its reliance on language, whilst insightful for partially solving the problem, has put AI progress on the wrong foot, prescribing a top-down approach for building thinking machines. I argue that to fix shortcomings with modern AI systems a nonverbal operationalisation is required. This is provided by the recent Animal-AI Testbed, which translates animal cognition tests for AI and provides a bottom-up research pathway for building thinking machines that create predictive models of their environment from sensory input.

The Turing Test

2021 ◽  
pp. 16-32
Author(s):  
Simone Natale
Keyword(s):  
Turing Test ◽  
Imitation Game ◽  
Practical Test ◽  
Alan Turing ◽  
Computing Technologies ◽  
Complex Scenario ◽  
The Relationship

The relationship between AI and deception was initially explored by Alan Turing, who famously proposed in 1950 a practical test addressing the question “Can machines think?” This chapter argues that Turing’s proposal of the Imitation Game, now more commonly called the Turing test, located the prospects of AI not just in improvements of hardware and software but also in a more complex scenario emerging from the interaction between humans and computers. The Turing test, by placing humans at the center of its design as judges and as conversation agents alongside computers, created a space to imagine and experiment with AI technologies in terms of their credibility to human users. This entailed the discovery that AI was to be achieved not only through the development of more complex and functional computing technologies but also through the use of strategies and techniques exploiting humans’ liability to illusion and deception.

Turing and the paranormal

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Leavitt
Keyword(s):  
William James ◽  
Large Body ◽  
Sensory Perception ◽  
Nobel Laureate ◽  
Statistical Evidence ◽  
Imitation Game ◽  
Academic Affiliation ◽  
Alan Turing ◽  
Computing Machinery ◽  
Society For Psychical Research

Of the nine arguments against the validity of the imitation game that Alan Turing anticipated and refuted in advance in his ‘Computing machinery and intelligence’, the most peculiar is probably the last, ‘The argument from extra-sensory perception’. So out of step is this argument with the rest of the paper that most writers on Turing (myself included) have tended to ignore it or gloss over it, while some editions omit it altogether.1 An investigation into the research into parapsychology that had been done in the years leading up to Turing’s breakthrough paper, however, provides some context for the argument’s inclusion, as well as some surprising insights into Turing’s mind. Argument 9 (of the nine arguments against the validity of the imitation game) begins with a statement that to many of us today will seem remarkable. Turing writes:… I assume that the reader is familiar with the idea of extra-sensory perception and the meaning of the four items of it, viz. telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, and psycho-kinesis. These disturbing phenomena seem to deny all our usual scientific ideas. How we should like to discredit them! Unfortunately the statistical evidence, at least for telepathy, is overwhelming…. To what ‘statistical evidence’ is Turing referring? In all likelihood it is the results of some experiments carried out in the early 1940s by S. G. Soal (1899–1975), a lecturer in mathematics at Queen Mary College, University of London, and a member of the London-based Society for Psychical Research (SPR). To give some background, the SPR had been founded in 1882 by Henry Sidgwick, Edmund Gurney, and F. W. H. Myers—all graduates of Trinity College, Cambridge—for the express purpose of investigating ‘that large body of debatable phenomena designated by such terms as mesmeric, psychical and spiritualistic . . . in the same spirit of exact and unimpassioned enquiry which has enabled science to solve so many problems, once no less obscure nor less hotly debated’. Although the membership of the SPR included numerous academics and scientists—most notably William James, Sir William Crookes, and Lord Rayleigh, a Nobel laureate in physics—it had no academic affiliation. Indeed, in the view of their detractors, the ‘psychists’, as they were known, occupied the same fringe as the mediums and mind-readers whose claims it sought to verify—or disclaim.

scholarly journals The Modified Imitation Game: A Method for Measuring Interactional Expertise

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Güler Arsal ◽  
Joel Suss ◽  
Paul Ward ◽  
Vivian Ta ◽  
Ryan Ringer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Language Processing ◽  
Expert Knowledge ◽  
Turing Test ◽  
Verbal Reports ◽  
Imitation Game ◽  
Interactional Expertise ◽  
Sociology Of Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Social Nature ◽  
Blind Individuals ◽  
Expert Community

The study of the sociology of scientific knowledge distinguishes between contributory and interactional experts. Contributory experts have practical expertise—they can “walk the walk.” Interactional experts have internalized the tacit components of expertise—they can “talk the talk” but are not able to reliably “walk the walk.” Interactional expertise permits effective communication between contributory experts and others (e.g., laypeople), which in turn facilitates working jointly toward shared goals. Interactional expertise is attained through long-term immersion into the expert community in question. To assess interactional expertise, researchers developed the imitation game—a variant of the Turing test—to test whether a person, or a particular group, possesses interactional expertise of another. The imitation game, which has been used mainly in sociology to study the social nature of knowledge, may also be a useful tool for researchers who focus on cognitive aspects of expertise. In this paper, we introduce a modified version of the imitation game and apply it to examine interactional expertise in the context of blindness. Specifically, we examined blind and sighted individuals’ ability to imitate each other in a street-crossing scenario. In Phase I, blind and sighted individuals provided verbal reports of their thought processes associated with crossing a street—once while imitating the other group (i.e., as a pretender) and once responding genuinely (i.e., as a non-pretender). In Phase II, transcriptions of the reports were judged as either genuine or imitated responses by a different set of blind and sighted participants, who also provided the reasoning for their decisions. The judges comprised blind individuals, sighted orientation-and-mobility specialists, and sighted individuals with infrequent socialization with blind individuals. Decision data were analyzed using probit mixed models for signal-detection-theory indices. Reasoning data were analyzed using natural-language-processing (NLP) techniques. The results revealed evidence that interactional expertise (i.e., relevant tacit knowledge) can be acquired by immersion in the group that possesses and produces the expert knowledge. The modified imitation game can be a useful research tool for measuring interactional expertise within a community of practice and evaluating practitioners’ understanding of true experts.

Abstract 861: Comparison of Three Different Doses of ACTH Stimulation During AVS For Primary Aldosteronism

Circulation ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 118 (suppl_18) ◽  
Author(s):  
GianPaolo Rossi ◽  
Teresa M Seccia ◽  
Diego Miotto ◽  
Franco Mantero ◽  
Gisella Pitter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Aldosteronism ◽  
Vena Cava ◽  
Adrenal Vein ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Correct Identification ◽  
Acth Stimulation ◽  
Four Corners ◽  
Wrong Identification ◽  
The Right ◽  
Different Doses

Background. ACTH stimulation was proposed to overcome the potential biases associated with pulsatile aldosterone secretion during AVS. Different protocols and doses of synthetic ACTH have been used but no systematic comparison between them was available. Aim. To compare the effects of 3 different doses of ACTH on the selectivity (SI) and the lateralization index (LI). Patients and Methods. We prospectively tested the effect of a high dose (HD; 250 μg as an i.v. bolus, n=41), a very low dose (VLD, 250 pg as an i.v. bolus followed by 0.5 pg/min infusion, n=6) and an intermediate dose (ID 50 μg/hr; n=7) on the SI and LI in patient referred for primary aldosteronism. Blood sampling for the measurement of plasma aldosterone (PAC) and cortisol (PCC) concentration were obtained at baseline and 30 minutes after ACTH stimulation, using bilaterally simultaneous AVS. The SI was calculated as the ratio between cortisol levels in the right (C RAV ) or left (C LAV ) adrenal vein and the infrarenal inferior vena cava (C IVC ); the LI was assessed as the ratio of aldosterone to cortisol on the side with the higher ratio (A/C SIDE ) over the contralateral aldosterone to cortisol (A/C CTRL ). The diagnosis of APA was based on pathology and follow-up data. Results. The HD induced a highly significant increase of PCC in IVC (+83%, P<0.003) and on the SI on both sides (SI RIGHT +120%; SI LEFT +122%, P<0.001), as compared to baseline values. By contrast, no significant change of PCC in IVC and of the SI was seen with the VLD. The ID elicited a significant increase of PCC in the infrarenal IVC (+82%, P<0.001), which was not significantly different from that seen with the HD. Likewise, the ID increased the SI (SI RIGHT +177%, P<0.001; SI LEFT + 727%, P<0.001). In the patients with an unequivocal diagnosis or APA based on the ‘four corners’ criteria, the HD and the ID led to wrong identification of the APA side in 28 and 25%, respectively. Conclusions. The HD and the ID improve the ascertainment of the selectivity of adrenal vein catheterization during AVS; by contrast, no significant effect of the VLD on either PAC or PCC was seen. The improvement in the assessment of selectivity with both the HD and the ID should be weighed against the confounding effect on correct identification of lateralized aldosterone excess to the APA side.

Can Automatic Calculating Machines Be Said To Think? (1952)

2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Turing ◽  
Richard Braithwaite
Keyword(s):  
Moral Philosophy ◽  
Turing Test ◽  
Machine Intelligence ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Considerable Proportion ◽  
Computing Machinery ◽  
Main Work ◽  
University Of Cambridge ◽  
Games Theory ◽  
The University

This discussion between Turing, Newman, R. B. Braithwaite, and G. Jefferson was recorded by the BBC on 10 January 1952 and broadcast on BBC Radio on the 14th, and again on the 23rd, of that month. This is the earliest known recorded discussion of artificial intelligence. The anchor man of the discussion is Richard Braithwaite (1900–90). Braithwaite was at the time Sidgwick Lecturer in Moral Science at the University of Cambridge, where the following year he was appointed Knightsbridge Professor of Moral Philosophy. Like Turing, he was a Fellow of King’s College. Braithwaite’s main work lay in the philosophy of science and in decision and games theory (which he applied in moral philosophy). Geoffrey Jefferson (1886–1961) retired from the Chair of Neurosurgery at Manchester University in 1951. In his Lister Oration, delivered at the Royal College of Surgeons of England on 9 June 1949, he had declared: ‘When we hear it said that wireless valves think, we may despair of language.’ Turing gave a substantial discussion of Jefferson’s views in ‘Computing Machinery and Intelligence’ (pp. 451–2), rebutting the ‘argument from consciousness’ that he found in the Lister Oration. In the present chapter, Jefferson takes numerous pot shots at the notion of a machine thinking, which for the most part Turing and Newman are easily able to turn aside. Jefferson may have thought little of the idea of machine intelligence, but he held Turing in considerable regard, saying after Turing’s death that he ‘had real genius, it shone from him’. From the point of view of Turing scholarship, the most important parts of ‘Can Automatic Calculating Machines Be Said to Think’ are the passages containing Turing’s exposition of the imitation game or Turing test. The description of the test that Turing gave in ‘Computing Machinery and Intelligence’ is here modified in a number of significant ways. The lone interrogator of the original version is replaced by a ‘jury’ (p. 495). Each jury must judge ‘quite a number of times’ and ‘sometimes they really are dealing with a man and not a machine’. For a machine to pass the test, a ‘considerable proportion’ of the jury ‘must be taken in by the pretence’.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document