In the imitation game, player c is unable to see either player a or player b, and can communicate with them only through written notes. By asking questions of player a and player b, player C tries to determine which of the two is the man and which is the woman. Player A's role is to trick the interrogator into making the wrong decision, while player b attempts to assist the interrogator in making the right one. Turing then asks: 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?" The original imitation game test, in which the player a is replaced with a computer. The computer is now charged with the role of the man, while player B continues to attempt to assist the interrogator.
Curriculum - subjects, writing - page 1 - logos Press
Player c, through a series of written questions, attempts to determine which of the other two players is aristotle a man, and which of the two is the woman. Player a, the man, tries to trick player c into making the wrong decision, while player B tries to help player. Figure adapted from saygin, 2000. Saul Traiger argues that there are at least three primary versions of the turing test, two of which are offered in "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" and one that he describes as the "Standard Interpretation". While there is some debate regarding whether the "Standard Interpretation" is that described by turing or, instead, based on a misreading of his paper, these three versions are not regarded as equivalent, and their strengths and weaknesses are distinct. Huma Shah points out that Turing himself was concerned with whether a machine could think and was providing a simple method to examine this: through human-machine question-answer sessions. Shah argues there is one imitation game which Turing described could be practicalised in two different ways: a) one-to-one interrogator-machine test, and b) simultaneous comparison of a machine with a human, both questioned in parallel by an interrogator. Since the turing test is a test of indistinguishability in performance capacity, the verbal version generalises naturally to all of human performance capacity, verbal as well as nonverbal (robotic). 48 Imitation game edit turing's original article describes a simple party game involving three players. Player a is a man, player b is a woman and player C (who plays the role of the interrogator) is of either sex.
However, the competition has awarded the bronze medal every year for the computer system that, in the judges' opinions, demonstrates the "most human" conversational behaviour among that year's entries. Artificial Linguistic Internet Computer Entity (A.L.I.C.E.) has won the bronze award on three occasions in recent times (2000, 2001, 2004). Learning ai jabberwacky won in 20The loebner Prize tests conversational intelligence; winners are typically chatterbot programs, or Artificial Conversational Entities (ACE)s. Early loebner Prize rules restricted conversations: Each entry and hidden-human conversed on a single topic, 44 thus the interrogators were restricted to one line of questioning per entity interaction. The restricted conversation rule was lifted for the 1995 loebner Prize. Interaction duration between judge and entity has varied in loebner Prizes. In loebner 2003, at the University of Surrey, each interrogator was allowed five minutes to interact with an entity, machine or hidden-human. Between 20, the interaction time allowed in loebner Prizes was more than twenty minutes. Versions edit The imitation dates game, as described by Alan Turing in "Computing Machinery and Intelligence".
It is underwritten by hugh loebner. The cambridge center for Behavioral Studies in Massachusetts, united States, organised the prizes up to and including the 2003 contest. As loebner described it, one reason the competition was created is to advance the state of ai research, at least in part, online because no one had taken steps to implement the turing test despite 40 years of discussing. The first loebner Prize competition in 1991 led to a renewed discussion of the viability of the turing test and the value of pursuing it, in both the popular press and academia. 42 The first contest was won by a mindless program with no identifiable intelligence that managed to fool naïve interrogators into making the wrong identification. This highlighted several of the shortcomings of the turing test (discussed below the winner won, at least in part, because it was able to "imitate human typing errors the unsophisticated interrogators were easily fooled; 42 and some researchers in ai have been led to feel. The silver (text only) and gold (audio and visual) prizes have never been won.
"Cyberlover a malware program, preys on Internet users by convincing them to "reveal information about their identities or to lead them to visit a web site that will deliver malicious content to their computers". 33 The program has emerged as a "Valentine-risk" flirting with people "seeking relationships online in order to collect their personal data". 34 The Chinese room edit main article: Chinese room John searle 's 1980 paper Minds, Brains, and Programs proposed the " Chinese room " thought experiment and argued that the turing test could not be used to determine if a machine can think. Searle noted that software (such as eliza) could pass the turing test simply by manipulating symbols of which they had no understanding. Without understanding, they could not be described as "thinking" in the same sense people. Therefore, searle concludes, the turing test cannot prove that a machine can think. Much like the turing test itself, searle's argument has been both widely criticised 36 and highly endorsed. 37 Arguments such as searle's and others working on the philosophy of mind sparked off a more intense debate about the nature of intelligence, the possibility of intelligent machines and the value of the turing test that continued through the 1980s and 1990s. Loebner Prize edit main article: loebner Prize the loebner Prize provides an annual platform for practical Turing tests with the first competition held in november 1991.
If a keyword is found, a rule that transforms the user's comments is applied, and the resulting sentence is returned. If a keyword is not found, eliza responds either with a generic riposte or by repeating one of the earlier comments. In addition, weizenbaum developed eliza to replicate the behaviour of a rogerian psychotherapist, allowing eliza to be "free to assume the pose of knowing almost nothing of the real world." With these techniques, weizenbaum's program was able to fool some people into believing that they. Is not human." Thus, eliza is claimed by some to be one of the programs (perhaps the first) able to pass the turing test, even though this view is highly contentious (see below ). Kenneth Colby created parry essay in 1972, a program described as "eliza with attitude". It attempted to model the behaviour of a paranoid schizophrenic, using a similar (if more advanced) approach to that employed by weizenbaum. To validate the work, parry was tested in the early 1970s using a variation of the turing test.
A group of experienced psychiatrists analysed a combination of real patients and computers running parry through teleprinters. Another group of 33 psychiatrists were shown transcripts of the conversations. The two groups were then asked biography to identify which of the "patients" were human and which were computer programs. The psychiatrists were able to make the correct identification only 48 percent of the time a figure consistent with random guessing. In the 21st century, versions of these programs (now known as " chatterbots continue to fool people.
21 " Computing Machinery and Intelligence " ( 1950 ) was the first published paper by turing to focus exclusively on machine intelligence. Turing begins the 1950 paper with the claim, "I propose to consider the question 'can machines think? As he highlights, the traditional approach to such a question is to start with definitions, defining both the terms "machine" and "intelligence". Turing chooses not to do so; instead he replaces the question with a new one, "which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words." In essence he proposes to change the question from "Can machines think?" to "Can machines do what. In this game both the man and the woman aim to convince the guests that they are the other. (Huma Shah argues that this two-human version of the game was presented by turing only to introduce the reader to the machine-human question-answer test.) Turing described his new version of the game as follows: we now ask the question, "What will happen when a machine.
These questions replace our original, "Can machines think?" Later in the paper Turing suggests an "equivalent" alternative formulation involving a judge conversing only with a computer and a man. While neither of these formulations precisely matches the version of the turing test that is more generally known today, he proposed a third in 1952. In this version, which Turing discussed in a bbc radio broadcast, a jury asks questions of a computer and the role of the computer is to make a significant proportion of the jury believe that it is really a man. 26 Turing's paper considered nine putative objections, which include all the major arguments against artificial intelligence that have been raised in the years since the paper was published (see " Computing Machinery and Intelligence. 6 eliza and parry edit In 1966, joseph weizenbaum created a program which appeared to pass the turing test. The program, known as eliza, worked by examining a user's typed comments for keywords.
Garamond - the imitation of writing
Alan Turing edit researchers in the United Kingdom had been exploring "machine intelligence" for up to ten years prior to the founding of the field of artificial intelligence ( ai ) research in 1956. 14 It was a common topic among the members of the ratio club, who were an informal group of British cybernetics and electronics researchers that included Alan Turing, after whom the test is named. Turing, in particular, had been tackling the notion of machine intelligence since at least 1941 and one of the earliest-known mentions of "computer intelligence" was made by him in 1947. In Turing's report, "Intelligent Machinery 18 he investigated "the question of whether or not it is possible for machinery to show intelligent behaviour" and, as part of that investigation, proposed what may be considered the forerunner to his later tests: It is not difficult. 20 Now get three men as subjects for the experiment. A, b and. A and c are to be rather plan poor chess players, b is the operator who works the paper machine. Two rooms are used with some arrangement for communicating moves, and a game is played between c and either a or the paper machine. C may find it quite difficult to tell which he is playing.
Descartes fails to consider the possibility that future automata might be able to overcome such insufficiency, and so does not propose the turing test as such, even if he prefigures its conceptual framework and criterion. Denis Diderot formulates in his Pensées philosophiques a turing-test criterion: "If they find a parrot who could answer to everything, i would claim it to be an intelligent being without hesitation." 10 This does not mean he agrees with this, but that it was already. According to dualism, the mind is non-physical (or, at the very least, has non-physical properties ) 11 and, therefore, cannot be explained in purely physical terms. According to materialism, the mind can be explained physically, which leaves open the possibility of minds that are produced artificially. 12 In 1936, philosopher Alfred ayer considered the standard philosophical question of other minds : how do we know that other people have the same conscious experiences that we do? In his book, language, truth and Logic, ayer suggested a protocol to distinguish between malayalam a conscious man and an unconscious machine: "The only ground I can have for asserting that an object which appears to be conscious is not really a conscious being, but only. Moreover, it is not certain that ayer's popular philosophical classic was familiar to turing.) In other words, a thing is not conscious if it fails the consciousness test.
has become an important concept in the philosophy of artificial intelligence. Contents, history edit, philosophical background edit, the question of whether it is possible for machines to think has a long history, which is firmly entrenched in the distinction between dualist and materialist views of the mind. René descartes prefigures aspects of the turing test in his 1637. Discourse on the method when he writes: How many different automata or moving machines can be made by the industry of man. For we can easily understand a machine's being constituted so that it can utter words, and even emit some responses to action on it of a corporeal kind, which brings about a change in its organs; for instance, if touched in a particular part. But it never happens that it arranges its speech in various ways, in order to reply appropriately to everything that may be said in its presence, as even the lowest type of man can. 9 Here descartes notes that automata are capable of responding to human interactions but argues that such automata cannot respond appropriately to things said in their presence in the way that any human can. Descartes therefore prefigures the turing test by defining the insufficiency of appropriate linguistic response as that which separates the human from the automaton.
2, if the evaluator cannot reliably tell the machine from the human, the machine is said to have passed the test. The test results do not depend on the ability to give correct answers to questions, only how closely one's answers resemble those a human would give. The test was introduced by turing in his 1950 paper, ". Computing Machinery and Intelligence while working at the, university of Manchester (Turing, 1950;. . 3, it paper opens with the words: "I propose to consider the question, 'can machines think? because "thinking" is difficult to define, turing chooses to "replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words." Turing's new question is: "Are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the imitation game?". This question, turing believed, is one that can actually be answered.
Writing - essays, imitation
For other uses, see, turing test (disambiguation). The "standard interpretation" of the turing test, in which player c, the interrogator, is given the task of trying to determine which player a or B is a computer and which is a human. The interrogator is limited to using the responses to written questions to make the determination. 1, the, turing test, developed. Alan Turing in 1950, is a test of a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behavior equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human. Turing proposed that a human evaluator would judge natural language conversations between writing a human and a machine designed to generate human-like responses. The evaluator would be aware that one of the two partners in conversation is a machine, and all participants would be separated from one another. The conversation would be limited to a text-only channel such as a computer keyboard and screen so the result would not depend on the machine's ability to render words as speech.